I would have been more comfortable with putting (who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia) in parentheses, showing that it is of secondary, not primary, importance to the issue.
The question is narrowly tailored, on the one hand, but it is a very important and clear first step, on the other hand.
The Court will need to define the scope of the 2A as it relates to individual rights versus a collective right [you know, the “National Guard” nonsense].
That is step 1. Other steps, assuming step 1 is successful, are incorporation into state laws, defining “bear” [as in carry around], applying strict scrutiny for restrictions on the right to bear, and so on.
Other steps, assuming step 1 is successful, are incorporation into state laws, defining “bear” [as in carry around], applying strict scrutiny for restrictions on the right to bear, and so on.