[gridlock]

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.

[xsrdx]

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.

Its phrased such because that's what DC is claiming, and what Heller is disputing.

They haven't "already decided" - the question is central to the case as presented.

[GnL]

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.

It is relevant because that is the cruxt of the entire debate. That IS the individual vs. collective disagreement. That's why it is a QUESTION. Because they haven't come up with the answer yet. You can't leave out the militia language from the question because that is the basis of the collective rights argument.

[agere_contra]

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

Your exegesis is exactly correct and extremely well written. Vote for POST OF THE DAY.