>> ...The Miller case was bad case law,
>> Heller does not go far enough to rectify it.
>
> In your opinion. Not in everyone's opinion. There is not a consensus around
> your interpretation.
The simple fact is this: Miller was decided without any oral arguments from the defense. Why? Because Miller himself was dead. The prosecution presented its side, then the justices gave their decision. This is not my opinion, it is verifiable fact - and that is why it is bad case law. It's lopsided. Go look it up and prove yourself wrong if you must. My opinion is, on news of Miller's death the case should have been dismissed with no judgment.
> Historians (whose job is to reconstruct and understand the complexity of the
> past rather than influence legal opinion) overwhelmingly reject an
> individualist reading of the 2nd.
Appeals to unnamed authority have known worth. I've named one constitutional law authority who reversed himself after finally giving the second amendment the same level of scrutiny he gave other amendments, you should not dismiss him so hastily.
> I don't know Laurence Tribe and I'm not convinced his recent arguments are
> valid.
Would you question the validity of Tribe's argument if he was in agreement with you? I think not. You'll need to find a better reason to dismiss what Tribe has said than because you don't like it.
> I was referring to a constitutional scholar that I have had lengthy
> conversations on this topic with, Prof. James Rollins.
Has Rollins published on this topic? Tribe has. Be sure you get the 3rd edition of Tribe's magnum opus, earlier editions give that amendment short shrift.
> No other constitution right is absolute so why the right to own a gun should
> be is a mystery.
Perhaps because none of the other rights include the phrase "shall not be infringed"?
What does "shall not be infringed" mean to you?
Percy