:-} I did all that?
ROTFL. Of course not. I'm sure you understood what I meant though, and you're in a good position to understand given your education.
I hadn't read Cruikshank/Presser carefully until the Sotomayor nomination. I was rather surprised at what I found. The language of the cases is stilted and jargon-laden, as all the cases from that period are. I've been rephrasing the case in simpler (but still accurate) terms, and hope others are persuaded to look at Presser for themselves to see what propositions it can FAIRLY be said to support.
Presser was conducting an armed parade on public property, and doing so without obtaining a parade permit. His argument was basically that the 1st and/or 2nd amendment protects a right to conduct armed public parades.
I think your sentiment that the Presser case is hostile to the RKBA is misplaced. Your hostility should be directed to the Circuit Courts for claiming Presser stands for the proposition that states are free to prohibit keep and bear arms; because that is not at all what Presser stands for. Presser stands for the proposition that states may require parade permits.