â€œWhether the following provisions â€" D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 â€" violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
I would tend to agree with you on this. I also read a brief statement last week which got me thinking. We have all seen the commercials by the armed forces/army which advertises for an army of ONE; Wouldn't it follow suit then, that if the army is going to advertise like this, that we could also consider a militia to be a militia of ONE?
Just a little thought to get our thinking caps on--makes for interesting theory
at the least. Kind of like, if the military can use 18" shotguns why can't civilians? OOOPs, wasn't that case decided (erroneously) in 1938? Interesting since every army we ever had uses these weapons, but the Volsted (I know--spelling, sorry) Act said that these couldn't be considered of use to military--therefore to militia? Ahhhh--I digress too
The important thing is that hopefully the Supreme Court makes the right decision based upon facts & the Constitution and not like they did on the Eminent Domain issue--that is a terror in and of itself.
Anyway, just my thoughts.
As I have shouted from the rooftops on a thousand occasions and will copy as I am sick of typing it:
It doesn't mater whether we are or are not members of the militia, army, cheesecake foundry, or frogman patrol.
It (the second amendment) states clearly the right of the people to keep and bear arms......It says NOTHING about the militias right to do so. It says nothing about us being in a militia. A militia has nothing to do with the second amendment at all. The preamble, if that is an acceptable term, that addresses the militia is there to demonstrate why it is critical that the people be armed.
This position annoys me; and as the question as written:
â€œWhether the following provisions â€" D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 â€" violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"
Your position is not relevant. Although the question is a bit wonky. It comes very close to declaring individual rights as a priori in the question itself. Removing the possibility of deliberation on whether or not it is an individual right. The question gun control advocates want the court to take up would be whether or not in individual right exists based on their deliberate obfuscation of the clear text of the amendment.
The question before the court is not whether or not the right exists (it is declared a right within the question itself) but whether or not the DC gun ban violates that right. As it most clearly does I think it is a strong indication of where the court will fall in this matter.
Why they chose to include "who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia" in the question is a question in itself. You, me, and SCOTUS all know that considering membership in the army would change the nature of the question and it would cease being one of violation of individual rights and become a question of violation of collective and or government rights. But they have already stated they are considering the individual right. By reasoning "who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia" is superfluous to the question. Something I am certain of which the court is aware.
So again why include "who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia". I think the answer is clear; they mean to stamp out the whole collective rights bull**** once and for all as part of their position.
Needless to say I am optimistic.