Gun Control & RKBA

The problem today with the 2nd Amendment is the 2008 supreme court 'heller' decision, involving a gun owner who was stripped of his guns due to a restraining order. He appealed, it went to supreme court, where presto chango 2ndA became an individual right (rkba - right to keep, bear arms), despite centuries of precedent having established it as a militia based right (based on england's 1689 'have arms' decree within their bill of rights signed by WM & Mary after the glorious revolution).

However, the previous most recent supreme court 2ndA decision was in 1939 when scotus had a similar case involving one jack miller & his accomplice frank layton, who crossed a state line with an illegal sawed off shotgun & claimed 2ndA protection. It ended up in supreme court, and the court ruled against miller (even tho he had died by then), citing the following opinions, within my summary:

The 2008 supreme court heller ruling was a political verdict, 5-4, and a subversion of the 2nd amendment by right wing demagogue justice scalia.
In 1939 the supreme court previously 'last' ruled on the 2ndA prior to heller, a unanimous 8-0 ruling (one recusal since new arrival) and offered these interpretations:

The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power -- "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such {militia} forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html

1939 miller cont'd, my edits: In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use {by jack miller} of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a {current} well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right {of jack miller} to keep and bear such an instrument

This 1939 supreme court ruling on miller was UNANIMOUS. Not one justice felt the above wording to be wrong or misleading about any individual rkba, they clearly called it for the militia interpretation. Not one justice thought 'whoa fellow justices, look how we worded that, future generations are gonna think we're ruling for a militia interpretation'. Nope, all thought it was proper wording, that it was indeed a militia interpretation.
{.. Note, the 9th recused justice later wrote a book or paper supporting gun control.}

Tack on an amicus brief citing adams, by the US justice dept in 1938 to the 1939 supreme court re miller: In the only other case in which the provisions of the National Firearms Act have been assailed as being in violation of the Second Amendment, the contention was summarily rejected as follows:
The second amendment to the Constitution, providing, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," has no application to this act. The Constitution does not grant the privilege to racketeers and desperadoes to carry weapons of the character dealt with in the act. It {2ndA} refers to the militia, a protective force of government; to the collective body and not individual rights. http://www.guncite.com/miller-brief.htm

Scalia kicked stare decisis (scotus bound by previous interpretations handed down thru the years), in the ass & the right wing put him on a pedestal.
The Militia Act of 1792, coming a mere 5 months after the 2ndA was enacted in bor, was intended to define what the 2nd amendment described - the well regulated militia part, how to drill when to meet. The Militia Act of 1792 was superseded under Teddy Roosevelt circa 1903, disestablishing the citizen's militia part & replacing the 1792 act with the US militia code which established the national guards & the unorganized militia.

US Militia code, circa 1903 under teddy roosevelt: 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age.. et cetera:
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=206865

Note in class 2, the unorganized militia (99% of americans belong or belonged or will belong) does not meet the requirements of the 2nd amendment, in that, by definition, an unorganized militia is NOT well regulated. It could not possibly be what madison intended in 1791.
There is no 'well regulated' citizens militia today as envisioned by the bill of rights, the 2nd amendment is obsolete & antiquated. But still loved by gunnuts, as a false god.