[Travis McGee]

I’m not too worried about the term ‘state-regulated militia’. Essentially, this case will come down to the definition of militia. The gun grabbers want to limit that definition to the national guard. It is clear that the founders believed the militia consisted of all those capable of bearing arms. If the original definition holds, then the case will go our way. BTW, there is another case from the 80’s, Dukakis v. US, where the USSC ruled that the federal government held plenary powers over the national guard. It would be absurd to think that the founding fathers believed that the federal government should hold absolute power over the militia.

I'm very worried. SCOTUS recently told us that CO2 was a pollutant, CFR was okay (speech restrictions before an election), and your property could be confiscated because a politician's buddy wants to build a fast food joint on the site. They could easily decide that the militia of 1800 was today the national guard.

[Jim Noble]

They could easily decide that the militia of 1800 was today the national guard.

All they have to decide (and they will decide) is that the well regulated militia clause means something (they won't define what it means), and that the something it means is that there is no private RKBA.

5-4, no RKBA. Bookmark it.