Originally posted by Kunsoo
I didn't find that in the decision when I read it. Can you cite the portion? If so, then Miller was in fact overturned, even if the majority was afraid to say it.
Miller was distinguished not overruled. Buried in Scalia's 64 pages of turgid nitpicking are these sentences:
We therefore read Miller to say
only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.
Of course, this is utterly senseless. Modern assault rifles are not typically possessed by law abiding citizens because they are illegal, not because they wouldn't be useful tools to have when you were drummed into the non-existent militia. If Scalia was logically coherent (an idle dream I know) he would have to conclude that just as the Brown Bess musket was the standard allowable type of weapon for militia service in the 1790's, a fully automatic M-16 and some grenades should be the type of weapon an individual should be able to bear to be ready for militia service in the 2010's. Limiting the Amendment's reach to "lawful weapons" makes it a tautology.