From robertpaulsen:
But the more case law I read, the more I'm drifting to the "limited individual rights model".
Here's the "limited individual rights model" that robertpaulsen is drifting to:
"individuals maintain a constitutional right to possess firearms insofar as such possession bears a reasonable relationship to militia service."
So robertpaulsen doesn't believe that individuals maintain a constitutional right to possess firearm related to militia service, as he earlier claimed?
Come back when you're prepared to add something to the thread.