I'm curious. Jack went on and on about how this bill would pass the constitution because he wrote it. He said it was "narrowly tailored" and all that crap. Has he ever actually given any sort of explanation on what made this bill any different from the others?
I've looked at the bill, and the only difference I can see between it and most of the other attempts to use the Miller test is that it doesn't attempt to define what counts as violence. Narrowly tailored, indeed.