As I recall from Schulman's article, he did not come up with that interpreation, he merely passed along the findings of some academic who did the analysis (I can't recall the fellow's name at the moment).
Regardless, the "one-sided view" of that political activist pretty much agrees with the general interpretation of the Second Amendment common until the middle of the 20th century. The notion that the language limits the RKBA to only *one* of the categories of "militia" as defined in the federal statutes is a recent invention, and a shaky argument at best. As far as that interpretation not mattering when it comes to the law, I disagree. Currently, there are Federal Appellate Court rulings which are in direct opposition due precisely to this matter. Hey, if you absolutely want to stand alongside the 9th Circus Court on this issue, knock yourself out.
Did you read my post #246?
Yep. There are differences in how "militia" is defined at the state and federal levels. More later.
Oh my. Please don't misinterpret an explanation of a ruling as my support of that ruling. Why would you do that?
"As far as that interpretation not mattering when it comes to the law, I disagree."
Well, what I meant was that his interpretation doesn't matter -- if the USSC, or any court, had that interpretation, it would matter.