Erwin Chemerinsky’s column of June 9 omitted one very important detail about the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment rulings before 2008. In 1939, the court in United States v. Miller admitted that private citizens supply their own weapons for militia duty. While the court ruled a sawed-off shotgun has no use under the Second Amendment, the court cited William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” and Herbert Osgood’s “The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century” as proof that militias are historically the able-bodied male population . People who want to ban firearms need to stop rewriting the past and just be honest about their real view: an existential case against any gun being in the hands of a private citizen. Sure, an AR-15 didn’t exist in 1791, but neither did a bolt action carbine, a pump shotgun or a lever action rifle. Ergo the case he makes against an AR-15 is functionally no different than a case against the aforementioned guns. He ends his column with the classic no-right-is-absolute cliche — could that argument be used against his views someday?