US v Miller is a poor example of judicial precident. Miller was a convicted felon who carried a sawed off shotgun across statelines in the early 1930's. The judge wanted to make an example of him and when Miller pulled the card that it was his Constitutional right to keep and bear arms the Judge found a way around it with the whole milita/national guard thing and inadvertantly started a schism among law makers and law abiding citizens.

I'd say that if they declare the second amendment pretains to state rights only, not individual rights, then the whole damn Bill of Rights pertains only to states rights. "The People" cannot mean the individual citizens in one sentence, and the states indepentantly in another. Anyone with a 7th grade english comprehension level should be able to wrap their lopsided head around that.

You have to go back to what James Madison meant when he wrote the federalist papers, and look at some of the early drafts he and some of the other framers of the constitution considered. Its clearly evident to me, and to most scholars I have consulted through out my life, that Madison's intent was to have armed private citizens. Any scholar who denys the historic facts, and literary meaning and structure of the ammendment has a private bone to pick with firearms.