Replies

In Silveira v. Lockyer the 9th Circuit Court stated, "The historical record makes it equally plain that the (second-rp) amendment was not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession."

They also said this:

The preamble establishes that the amendment’s purpose was to ensure the maintenance of effective state militias, and the amendment’s operative clause establishes that this objective was to be attained by preserving the right of the people to “bear arms” — to carry weapons in conjunction with their service in the militia.

And they're just wrong. Twice. AMONG the purposes was ensuring the effectiveness of STATE militias, AND other militias, such as the volunteer Boston artillery unit I spoke of earlier.

But more importantly, they just DROPPED the whole part about KEEPING arms, and went right to bearing them. Admittedly, it makes more sense than twisting a militia relationship into Congressional authority to infringe upon how we KEEP our arms, as you did here:

The weapons are militia-related. It would be illegal to keep and bear these arms for any other purpose.

So in order to keep from infringing on our right to keep arms, they're going to have to infringe on our right to keep arms. Got it, but I think I'll just keep mine here, not in any stinkin' govt armory. :D

"And they're just wrong."

And the USSC would use that wrong decision and other wrong decisions by all the other lower federal courts to make their decision -- which would also be wrong. Too late, amigo. It's then settled law. You got your wish, though.

"But more importantly, they just DROPPED the whole part about KEEPING arms"

They devoted very few words to it -- maybe one paragraph in 80 pages of dicta. They simply combined "keep" with "bear", saying it was similar to "necessary" and "proper".

"So in order to keep from infringing on our right to keep arms, they're going to have to infringe on our right to keep arms."

So in order to keep from infringing on our right to keep arms as part of a militia, they're going to have to infringe on our individual right to keep arms. Yep. You got it. That's exactly how the USSC would read it, based on past lower court rulings.