Stevens noted that the legal precedent for restricting gun rights \u2014 United States vs. Miller \u2014 still stands, despite the ruling in the 2005 Heller case that overturned the Washington, D.C., ban on owning handguns, even in one\u2019s own home.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\u201c[Miller] was generally understood to limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to the uses of arms that were related to military activities<\/strong>,\u201d Stevens said today during a question-and-answer session after a speech today with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence\u2019s Legal Action Project. \u201cThe Court did not overrule Miller [in Heller].<\/p><\/blockquote>\nThat’s technically true. \u00a0Heller<\/em> overruled a specious, logically-vacuous train of opinion in lower courts that\u00a0Miller\u00a0<\/em>meant that the Second Amendment was not a right “Of the People”, but that it might refer to assemblies of people like the National Guard.<\/p>\nRemember the bolded bit. \u00a0We’ll be coming back to it very shortly.<\/p>\n
Back to Justice and Dolt Stevens:<\/p>\n
Instead it \u2018read 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 . . . Thus, the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations permitting the ownership or the use of the sorts of the automatic weapons<\/strong> used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado, or Arizona in recent years.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\nFor starters, Stevens – like the entire generation of bobbleheaded activists that spawned him – contradicts himself; he said\u00a0Miller\u00a0<\/em>was limited in scope to the use of military weapons – which\u00a0are<\/em>, largely, “automatic”. \u00a0Meaning…<\/p>\n…well, not what “Justice” and senile fool Stevens thinks. \u00a0Here’s some remedial firearms education: \u00a0this is “automatic”:<\/p>\n