If you ask me, the Court has already tipped thier hands by substituting “state-regulated” for “well regulated”. - GL
I read that just the opposite. My translation of the way they are posing the question is: Do ordinary individuals who are not part of the army or national guard have the individual right to bear arms? Which, imo, is the right question. It removes any proficeincy test that “well-regulated” might impose.
Although, for any elementary school pupil of my generation who was taught proper grammar, the meaning is crystal clear.
The very question accepts the contention that membership in a militia has anything to do with the right to keep and bear arms. A correct reading of the amendment, of course, makes it clear that an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms is a necessary condition for the existance of a militia, which is a reason why the pre-existing right should not be infringed.
In other words, the individual right makes the collective action possible, but the right is not collective. By considering membership in a state-regulated militia part of the question, the Court accepts that that membership is relevant to the question, and that the right is granted and collective.
“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”
Now flip the condition. If an individual is affiliated with a state-regulated militia, would that have any bearing on whether or not he could keep handguns or other firearms for private use in his home? Does affiliation with a state-regulated militia increase one's right to bear arms?
If the answer is yes, then the question is properly formulated, because it is testing the condition where the person is not affiliated with a state-regulated militia, which would, presumably, be the more restrictive case.
If the answer is no, and the right of the individual is the same whether or not he is affiliated with a state-regulated militia, then the question is improperly formulated because it specifies a condition which is not relevant.
Which means the answer must be yes. The right must be conditional on affiliation with a state-regulated militia, which means the right is collective.
Well, this is a very craftily written question — it can be read both ways. Doubtless, this is why it took so long for the court to issue this.
I’m not optimistic about this, but it’s game on, now.
“I read that just the opposite. My translation of the way they are posing the question is: Do ordinary individuals who are not part of the army or national guard have the individual right to bear arms? Which, imo, is the right question. It removes any proficeincy test that “well-regulated” might impose.”
That’s exactly how I read it.