[processing please hold]

But their right to keep and bear arms is protected as part of a militia.

So everyone not in the militia can gotohell as far as gun ownership is concerned? Pardon my french.

meaning the defendants, as individuals, couldn't seek the protection of the second amendment because the second amendment protected the ability of a state to form a citizen's militia.

So they're parsing the meaning of the second to fit their agenda?

A state would have to bring a second amendment case against the federal government.

Will the state do that? I won't be holding my breath.

Thank you for all the information.

Given that, are you looking forward to the day when the second amendment is incorporated and these yahoos get to define "arms"? Or "keep"? Or "bear"?

NO!

[processing please hold]

Is John Edwards pushing the un Bill of Rights on his blog? It was under the heading---"Join the campaign to change America."

Here it is.

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/10/4/215055/244

[robertpaulsen]

"So everyone not in the militia can gotohell as far as gun ownership is concerned?"

Nope. It only means that if you're not in a well regulated state militia the second amendment does not protect your RKBA.

Your individual RKBA is protected by your state contitution. Even if it isn't protected by your state constitution (six state constitutions do not), that doesn't mean you're not allowed to keep and bear arms. It just means the right is not protected and state laws MAY be written to limit that right, assuming the citizens of the state concur.

Millions of Californians keep and bear arms legally and constitutionally, even though the California state constitution doesn't protect that right.