Agree........loaded question indeed !....we’re screwed.
BLOAT !......CACHE etc etc as applicable ......:o)
I look at the framing of the question the other way. To me, they are framing the question so that when they affirm the lower court’s decision there can be no doubt (and lawyerly weasling by anti-gun groups and politicians) that the second amendment protects an individual right and it applies to anyone, regardless of their affiliation, or lack thereof, with a guard unit or the military.
I’m more concerned about whether SCOTUS will acknowledge/address the type of right it is and make it clear the second amendment is a fundamental right.
I tend to diagree. The grammar of the sentence assumes that "individuals", in this case those not affiliated with any state regulated militia, *have* Second Amendment rights. The very thing that DC argued against before the Court of Appeals.
violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia
Ask yourself who "Second Amendment rights" in that sentence are said to belong to (are "of"). The answer "individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia."
I don't who wrote that sentence, but at least the minimum number of Justices signed off on it, and I find it very promising indeed.