The Post summary was that the ruling "wiped away years of lower court decisions that had held that the intent of the amendment ... was to tie the right of gun possession to militia service."

That may be true, but the issue at hand is was that original precedent was misinterpreted and subsequent laws were seen under the wrong light. Miller limits they type of gun that can be owned (a commonly used military arm) and not that membership in a militia was required to have a gun. The law has been misinterpreted for years.

In addition Miller was a sham of a hearing as only the government was represented. Limiting woman’s suffrage and civil rights in order to have judicial consistency is no excuse to maintain a bad precedent. The same is true of gun rights. To preserve eighty years of wrong interpretations so we could have consistency is unacceptable.