I was a little curious about the Miller Case so I looked it up (briefly) and found the following information. Miller (upon reading it) does not seem to wholly address the issue as to if this is an individual right and was quite unclear in the wording of the ruling. ( as this case was based upon interstate transportation of fireamrs Sawed Off Shotguns in violation of the US Code). It is left to open interpretation. I have posted below some court rulings and information in relation to this topic...
The meaning of the Second Amendment depends upon who you talk to. The National Rifle Association, which has the Second Amendment (minus the militia clause) engraved on its headquarters building in Washington, insists that the Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess and carry a wide variety of firearms.
Advocates of gun control contend that the Amendment was only meant to guarantee to States the right to operate militias.
The Supreme Court could easily resolve this debate, but ever since the cryptic decision of U. S. vs. Miller in 1939, the Court has ducked the issue.
Miller is subject to two possible interpretations. One, that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but that the right only extends to weapons commonly used in militias (the defendants in Miller were transporting sawed-off shotguns). The second--broader--view of Miller is that the Amendment guarantees no rights to individuals at all.
There is also a second open question concerning the Second Amendment: If it does create a right of individuals to own firearms, is the right enforceable against state regulation as well as against federal regulation?
In 1876, the Supreme Court said the right--if it existed--was enforceable only against the federal government, but there's been a wholesale incorporation of Bill of Rights provisions into the 14th Amendment since then, and it's not clear that the Court would come to the same conclusion today.
In Quilici vs Morton Grove, a case involving a challenge to a Chicago suburb's ban on the possession of handguns, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the right was not enforceable against the states.
The third case posted here is U. S. vs Emerson. Emerson offers a thorough historical and textual analysis of the Second Amendment supporting its conclusion that the Amendment was intended to protect the right of individuals to own and carry firearms. In October, 2001, the Fifth Circuit upheld the validity of federal firearm statute at issue in Emerson as a narrowly tailored reasonable restriction on Second Amendment rights--but, importantly, the court held that the Second Amendment does guarantee individuals the right to possess firearms, not just members of "militias."
In 2007, the D. C. Court of Appeals, in Parker v District of Columbia, struck down a Washington, D.C. ban on individuals having handguns in their homes. With its 2 to 1 ruling, the D. C. Circuit became the nations second court of appeals (following the Fifth Circuit) in finding that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to own firearms. Most other circuits courts have concluded the Second Amendment protects only the rights of states to maintain militias. The split in the circuits suggests that the time may finally be ripe for another Supreme Court decision on the issue.
Cases
United States vs. Miller (U.S. SCt. 1939)
Quilici vs Morton Grove (7th Cir. 1982)
U. S. vs. Emerson (N. D. Tex. 1999)
...[T]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.
Judge Laurence Silberman, for the majority in Parker v District of Columbia (DC Cir. 2007)
It does appear the Supreme Court cannot continue to duck this issue for much longer and I would not be surprized to see them take up the Case of Parker vs District of Columbia to put this issue to rest.
My personal opinion on this matter is I cannot see the S.C. holding this is not an individual right. However, It will be intersting to see how they view the Miller case as I am sure this will be Cited by the District of Columbia in support of the position they have to right to control firearms within the home.
Edit... By the way I did read the Miller case and found it very intersting the Supreme Court used in the ruling the language of several of the original 13 colonies Constitutions.. However for unknown reasons they used only the ones which I had stated were less than clear (in my original post) and failed to use any that expressly indicate the right is the the individual..
Makes you wonder why a bit doesnt it????
