"To be frank, I'm really not interested in trying to comment on
rewritten or reformulated versions of this or other cases. The court
said what it said, not what it didn't say. Sorry."
I'm sorry you're not interested in discussing the
rewritten/reformulated version that you presented, which was not what
the Court said.
"As the court said in its decision, Miller's action (carrying a
sawed-off shotgun across state lines) was not protected under the Second
Amendment because there was no evidence that his action 'has some
reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia.'"
The Court never said that his action was not protected. They
remanded with instructions to hear evidence about whether it was
protected.
The Court never asked for evidence about whether Miller's action had
some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia. The asked for evidence about the more general
question of whether "possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of
less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
militia."
I find it curios that you would post a rewritten/reformulated
version of what the Court supposedly said, and then say that you frankly
have no interest in such things.
