[robertpaulsen]

"They did say during all the references about the militia that you like to claim ties the right to militias. In their statement they gave a history of militias and that militias were male citizens of certain ages. Therefore, they stated that citizens are the ones that have the right."

Exactly. As part of a state militia.

Like you said, the court made many references to a militia. No need to do that if they were talking about an individual right.

[looscnnn]

Exactly. As part of a state militia.

I don't see anything stating such.

Like you said, the court made many references to a militia. No need to do that if they were talking about an individual right.

Yes they would need to if the prosecution tried to say that it was not an individual right but one that belongs to the militia (which the prosecution did) and that the sawed off shotgun was not a common militia arm (which they did also). The court had to make the references to show the history of militias and who they were comprised of.