That sums it up

Reynolds and Denning sum something up that has been difficult for me to communicate to others:

Subsequent courts went further, stating that Miller held that the Second Amendment did not guarantee an individual right.  Reading those opinions closely, however, it is clear that many simply relied on what other courts had said about Miller, and some judicial characterizations of Miller’s facts are so inaccurate that it is difficult to believe that the judge writing the opinion could have actually read the Miller decision itself. Lower court discussions of Miller resembled a game of judicial Telephone, with the actual holding of Miller becoming less and less recognizable as the years progressed.

I always tried to say the courts have misread Miller which holds near zero weight because I’m not a lawyer. But also I probably was being too generous the courts. As pointed out by above paragraph they most likely didn’t even read Miller. And even that may be too generous. It could be they actually read it then deliberately twisted it to arrive at the conclusion they wanted.

That said, this is all history now. We should concentrate on the future. I think the plan for the future is best summed up by Lyle with history being looked at for guidance on how we should treat our “prisoners of war”.