The U.S. Supreme Court never got that far. I do concede that, properly interpreted, the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear a full-auto M-16 ... as a registered member of a state Militia (which no longer exists).
As to where the arms would be "kept" and when they may be "borne", would be a state issue.
Historian Paul Johnson said:
"Beware of those who seek to win an argument at the expense of the language. For the fact that they do so is proof positive that their argument is false, and proof presumptive that they know it is. ...
Those who treasure the meaning of words, will treasure truth, and those who bend words to their purposes are very likely in pursuit of anti-social ones. The correct and honorable use of words is the first and natural credential of civilized status."
>>>The U.S. Supreme Court never got that far. I do concede that, properly interpreted, the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear a full-auto M-16 ... as a registered member of a state Militia (which no longer exists).<<<
Read the opinion again. The court never questioned Miller's assertion that he was in the militia. They only questioned the validity of a sawed-off shotgun as a militia weapon.