Replies

Useful links:

The blog for the attorneys for the good guys. They're bright lawyers, but the good part is, they can actually speak English. Some really good reading.

The US vs Miller decision, with which you can drive gungrabbers nuts. They've never read it, for the most part, but have been told their side won. Well, Miller and his lawyer were not around at the time, and the net effect was that the gungrabbers won, but have a look at what is written right in the decision:

The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [p179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

We're all supposed to have M-16s. If you read further in the opinion, and in Federalist 29, you will find that the idea was, the government was supposed to actually call us all to present ourselves and prove that we had our "weapons of the type commonly in use" in the military at the time, and further that we had sufficient ammo and other supplies and knew how to use it all.