Replies

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia,...

This is ominous. The "question" as formulated represents a poison-pill which can be used as a pretext to destroy the Second Amendment. The conflation of the term "well-regulated militia" with "state-regulated militia" is a dangerous sophistry. The terms are not synonymous.

I read it the opposite way. The SC justices know full well that the Second Amendment says nothing about a STATE-regulated militia. I think the phrasing of this question is meant to lead to an easy answer, crushing the claim of the DC government and the dingbat appeals court dissenter that DC’s non-statehood has anything to do with this.

""well-regulated militia" with "state-regulated militia" ... are not synonymous."

Meaning the "well regulated Militia" mentioned in the second amendment could be referring to ... what? A federal militia?

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

This is ominous. The "question" as formulated represents a poison-pill which can be used as a pretext to destroy the Second Amendment. The conflation of the term "well-regulated militia" with "state-regulated militia" is a dangerous sophistry. The terms are not synonymous.

The scotusblog article commented on that:

Some observers who read the Court’s order closely may suggest that the Court is already inclined toward an “individual rights” interpretation of the Second Amendment. That is because the order asks whether the three provisions of the D.C. gun control law violate “the Second Amendment rights of individuals.” But that phrasing may reveal very little about whether the Amendment embraces an individual right to have a gun for private use. Only individuals, of course, would be serving in the militia, and there is no doubt that the Second Amendment provides those individuals a right to have a gun for that type of service. The question the Court will be deciding is, if there are individuals who want to keep pistols for use at home, does the Second Amendment guarantee them that right. Just because the Second Amendment protects some individual right does not settle the nature of that right.

The other question relates to the third DC Code section cited: whether "any" gun kept in the home had to be disassembled or trigger locked.

The questions the Court posed for themselves could be worse, and there are lots of possible answers.

This is ominous. The "question" as formulated represents a poison-pill which can be used as a pretext to destroy the Second Amendment.

You're exactly right. I am very much afraid that we gun rights advocates will live to regret the day that this case came before the high court. Just one strike and you're out in this game.