No, let me restate - what you posted here is internally inconsistent.
What you wrote on your blog is not.
Bad advertising on your part, but good writing on your blog.
Ah, rats. Honest constructive criticism.
I agree that the summary is the clearest writing possible and promise to flog the author sometime during Lent.
What I meant to convey is that the first section of the brief is solid and valuable, a great parsing of the Miller decision. BUT, that the second part is just absolutely wonderful fun as the authors point out the logical outcomes that would flow from a decision in favor of D.C.
I think that no one in the District’s camp gave any thought at all to the day after a decision in their favor. I know most attorneys don’t think of such, and politicians almost never think past their next election. But still, this is such a big deal...
Anyway, this review plus my article from two months ago on how I would seek to join a militia, make for some really fun imagineering, as Disnet would say.
Also, thanks for the pointer. You are more correct than I.