Replacing white people to kill gun rights

[jimmy the one]

78. barroom dancer april love

surf guru: So you think a unanimous decision (to reverse and remand) where the Justices only hear the government's arguments {,} carries more weight than a split decision where both parties and numerous amici fully briefed the Court {,} and both parties argued their positions before the Court?

Indeed I do. Jack Miller was simply the catalyst for 1939 miller case, just as emerson was the catalyst for 2008 heller. That they both were accused & 'tried' of firearm violations hasn't that much to do with the renderings of the courts regarding the militia vs the individual interpretations.
1939 scotus unanimously held for the militia view, while 2008 scotus narrowly held 5-4 for an individual rkba, split upon liberal vs conservative views. You surfer guru, argue for the far right wing interpretation of 2ndA in almost everything you present. I remind you that you oppose the dominant democrat position & we post on democrat underground. Perhaps you would prefer posting on nra or goa websites or 'rightwing republican underground' where you can prop up inter alios ted cruz rand paul & Donald trump.

surfer guru: As the Cases court recognized,

Since you introduced circuit/appellate courts, april love vs pepersack, 4th circ:
1994/95: Citing law review articles, Love argues that she has an individual federal constitutional right to "keep and bear" a handgun, and Maryland may not infringe upon this right. She is wrong on both counts. The Second Amendment does not apply to the states. Presser v. Illinois, (1886); United States v. Cruikshank, (1876).
Moreover, even as against federal regulation, the amendment does not confer an absolute individual right to bear any type of firearm. In 1939, the Supreme Court held that the federal statute prohibiting possession of a sawed-off shotgun was constitutional, because the defendant had not shown that his possession of such a gun bore a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." United States v. Miller,(1939).
Since then, the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual, right. This court's precedent is United States v. Johnson,(4th Cir. 1974). In Johnson, the defendant challenged the constitutionality of the federal statute prohibiting possession of firearms by convicted felons. We were not impressed.
Johnson's argument that [18 U.S.C. §] 922(g) is an unconstitutional violation of his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not new. See, e.g., United States v. Miller, (1939). The courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." Johnson presents no evidence that section 922(g) in any way affects the maintenance of a well regulated militia.
Love has likewise not identified how her possession of a handgun will preserve or insure the effectiveness of the militia. The judgment is affirmed. http://www.guncite.com/court/fed/47f3d120.html