I should have written, "Read Silberman's citation of Muscarello."
We also note that at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read “bear Arms” in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering: “Surely a most familiar meaning [of ‘carries a firearm’] is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment (’keepand bear Arms’) and Black’s Law Dictionary . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing, we think the operative clause includes a private meaning for”bear Arms.”
Plus, the law in Muscarello had nothing whatsoever to do with the second amendment, or the right to keep and bear arms. The law dealt with the terms "carry" or "use". The question to the court was if a gun in the glove compartment constituted "carry". Why Ginsburg threw in that "bear arms" is a mystery to me.