If you haven't read it, it's a joy to read.
Yeah, I did read it top to bottom. IANAL, but from what I can tell, the judges pretty well nailed it. I could suggest a couple of points to add (some might call them dicta) - mainly I'd focus on the missions of the militia defined in Article 1 Section 8. In some ways this is back to what the supremes did in Miller - ask which weapons have utility for a militia? My contention is that the weapons carried by soldiers are certainly protected, and that crew served (heavy) weapons and even larger weapons systems (planes and ship) are protected also. This may seem extreme to some. I respond to that by asking if this is not the case, how else could the Congress authorize a "letter of marque," again as detailed in Article 1 Section 8. Why do this? Mainly, since the design of the Constitution says a militia is "necessary" I want it to be able to perform its missions successfully. Since the Constitution specifically includes use of the militia in defense against invasion by a foreign power, that means the militia has to have serious firepower. My contention is that we need a system (somewhat) like Switzerland uses today. Why? 1) It's how the country was designed to work, and 2) it distributes the responsibility for defending it, rather than concentrating it, which is what an army does.
Thank you. That was a refreshing read for a court decision!
All 3 judges were Reagan/Bush/Bush appointees, by the way... including the dissenting justice.
Thank you. That was a refreshing read for a court decision!
All 3 judges were Reagan/Bush/Bush appointees, by the way... including the dissenting justice.