well, have to say - unimpressed. the first case's discussion of miller focuses entirely on the context of what weapons are subject to regulation, and focuses entirely on heller for their decision.
the conservative justices, in their judicial activism, suggest that miller's holding "is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the econd [a]mendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that ‘have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia’). Had the [c]ourt [in Miller] believed that the econd [a]mendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen."
you of course, being the supreme partisan hack job you are, take this as gospel as though it was there already, even though very clearly Miller, at best, "suggests" there's an individual right to keep and bear arms according to the rationale in Heller. but once again, Miller is established as not having established any bright line rules of an individual right to guns like Heller does. so you are either being really intellectually dishonest with me thinking i can't read, or you are just a really shitty lawyer. either way, strike one.
and your case applies Heller and Mcdonald. wonderful, so a case that has nothing to show for the argument we are specifically discussing. strike two.
the fact you are now chastising me for language, when it was you and your sycophants jumping down my throat when my very accurate analysis challenged their shitty world view, is also being incredibly dishonest and intellectually lazy. i expect more out of conservatives - the fact you sit there on your high horse thinking you can just bully your way over people that disagree with you is downright appalling and nasty. strike 3.
this is probably the most pathetic display of conservative deception and downright intellectual bullying i've ever come across. and for what - b/c you don't like the reality of legal history. you should be ashamed - sincerely.