[JCG]

Historically, the Second Amendment has been viewed as a right limited to those who served in an organized
[militia] governed by federal or state law. This was the position taken by the Justice Department in the Emerson case and it has been supported by the Supreme Court precedent dating to 1939 when the court ruled in United Sates v. Miller, that there is no constitutional right to own a sawed-off shotgun because it has no “reasonable relationship” to the preservation of a well regulated militia.

I see two problems here:

1.  The Justice Department referred to was the Klinton/Reno Justice Department.  'Nuff said?

2.  If I'm not mistaken -- I could be -- the Supreme Court didn't "rule" about shotguns and militias in the Miller case but, instead, remanded it to the lower court for a decision about whether a sawed-off shotgun could be used as a weapon for the militia.  Miller didn't show and the government got a default judgment.  Hence, the matter was never truly settled.  (Obviously, a sawed-off shotgun would be a perfect weapon for close quarters fighting or even guard duty by a militiman.)

PS: thanks for the all the work in typing this up for us.

America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
Download 8 Mb zip file here (50 minute video)