From Dave Hardy, author of the blog, Arms And The Law:
He concludes by asking whether Justice Stevens reviewed the dissent, wonders how none of the four justices (Stevens included) saw the errors, and how the factual "problems" were missed by law clerks for all the dissenting justices combined.
"Comment on to previous post points out at p.2 of the Stevens dissent he refers to NFA and US v. Miller: "Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that . . ."
"Same mistake the 9th Circus made years ago and had to issue a new opinion, since Miller was never convicted -- commentators noted this was pretty suggestive the court hadn't bothered to read Miller before citing it. First thing you look for in reading a case is what happened below, and what the Court do to that. Very first thing."
h/t to Instapundit