Now that Scalia has died, are gun-lovers feeling...

[sarisataka]

42. So by "all previous SCOTUS precedent"

You mean one case. Unfortunately it does not even support your case as it did not reject any individual right to carry.

Miller was not an individual rights case. If you read the decision, it was never argued that Miller lacked militia standing. He was never enlisted in any form of the US military and as a felon was disqualified from militia service. If it was a question of individual rights or a militia requirement to own a firearm that would have made it an open and shut case. The Court was completely silent on the requirement of a person to have militia standing or an individual right to own firearms.

The case was about the ability of the government to restrict non-militia related weapons. They found, incorrectly by the way, that a short barreled shotgun was not in use by and had no purpose to be used in a militia so was therefore not protected by the 2A. I say incorrectly as minimal research would have showed the short barreled shotguns had been used in WW 1, a mere fifteen years earlier. This error was likely due to the fact that Miller was argued by the government only. As Miller had died prior to the SCOTUS hearing, no one argued against the government position.

If one were to look at Miller in a current day context, it is completely in line with Heller and McDonald. Also it would be a precedent to overturn so called assault weapon bans, as it can be easily shown that low to mid caliber semiautomatic rifles have many similarities to weapons commonly used by modern military forces.

You are correct in saying "Prior cases in the 19th century do not address the issue of individual rights"

As for Yale, it appears to say the Heller is ahistorically restrictive. I have no idea what the actual NRA position is, nor do I care.