If they wanta play games I say we play

[dukalmighty]

Since they seem to wanta use this militia stuff to decide who and who cannot bear arms I suggest we start an all states free militia if you join our militia you might theoretically be able to carry a weapon anywhere in the 50 states,has anybody ever tested these waters I mean if we joined a militia we should be able to purchase select fire weapons as we would be a legal militia involved in protecting the constitution of the United States....Or did somebody slip some shrooms in my salad

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[NYcarry]

Well sign me up

[grady]

Militias? Hey, we have militias in Missouri. Quite a few, according to the local police.

However... one small, er, big problem for me: I'm not sure I'm eligible. Um, er, you see, some of them have a pigment/family heritage/gotta-hate-all-foreigners requirement, and... um... well, I'm not sure some of the rural militias would appreciate my family's heritage or my input on the matter.

Hey, I could start my own! Yeh, that's it.

[JeffLrrp]

Militias? Hey, we have militias in Missouri. Quite a few, according to the local police.

However... one small, er, big problem for me: I'm not sure I'm eligible. Um, er, you see, some of them have a pigment/family heritage/gotta-hate-all-foreigners requirement, and... um... well, I'm not sure some of the rural militias would appreciate my family's heritage or my input on the matter.

Hey, I could start my own! Yeh, that's it.

I'd be proud to join yours . . . if you'd have me

[Ram Rod]

We actually have or had some county militias in the home state.
Militia of Washington County, Arkansas | Homepage
They've had their trials and tribulations.
Times Record
http://www.angelfire.com/ar2/militia/

[grady]

I'd be proud to join yours . . . if you'd have me

Thank you! I believe two makes it official! I watch your back, you watch mine.

[stanislaskasava]

Since they seem to wanta use this militia stuff to decide who and who cannot bear arms I suggest we start an all states free militia if you join our militia you might theoretically be able to carry a weapon anywhere in the 50 states,has anybody ever tested these waters I mean if we joined a militia we should be able to purchase select fire weapons as we would be a legal militia involved in protecting the constitution of the United States....Or did somebody slip some shrooms in my salad

The Supreme Court has recently said that the right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on militia membership.

This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Since the right is now properly interpreted, the trick will be to establish select-fire weapons as '[having] some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.' to use the language of Miller. They most certainly do, but current infringements must be found unconstitutional.

[ccw9mm]

Since the right is now properly interpreted ...

Well, partially interpreted, at least. They couldn't get past the words "shall not be infringed." They were too focused on futzing with the comma and the word "militia." Never addressed them, really.

5:4 isn't blazing performance (and it's darned near failure), but it's a small step in the right direction.

[rljohns]

What you need to remember is that the operative clause of the amendments (especially the second) stands alone separate form the prefatory clause. So the whole militia part doesn't even matter, only the "people" portion and the infringe part and the keep and bear parts. At least that is what Scalia said and I believe him. It was the way they wrote in that period of history. The first only sets the stage for an example of a need. It is not the only need.

[Natureboypkr]

Militias? Hey, we have militias in Missouri. Quite a few, according to the local police.

However... one small, er, big problem for me: I'm not sure I'm eligible. Um, er, you see, some of them have a pigment/family heritage/gotta-hate-all-foreigners requirement, and... um... well, I'm not sure some of the rural militias would appreciate my family's heritage or my input on the matter.

Hey, I could start my own! Yeh, that's it.

I'll join yours

[goldshellback]

Militias? Hey, we have militias in Missouri. Quite a few, according to the local police.

However... one small, er, big problem for me: I'm not sure I'm eligible. Um, er, you see, some of them have a pigment/family heritage/gotta-hate-all-foreigners requirement, and... um... well, I'm not sure some of the rural militias would appreciate my family's heritage or my input on the matter.

Hey, I could start my own! Yeh, that's it.

I'd be in yours. Sign me up!

[gddyup]

I think Scalia got it right, in as far as could be done under the auspices of the limits of the case set before the court. It's not everything that the Pro-2nd crowd would have liked, me being a member of such, but I feel it was a decent decision based on what the justices had to work with.

5-4 is not what I or many others had expected, but it's a heck of a lot better than 5-4 in favor of the opposite.

As far as the militia, you don't have to get into one per se, we're all for the most part already in the miltia....

[Tubby45]

My understanding of it was that the 5/4 was whether the DC ban was unconstitutional and it was a 9/0 that the 2A was an individual right.

[Kerbouchard]

Unfortunately, as it turns out, the government has a different name for those local 'militias'. I believe they normally call them cults. So far, forming militias doesn't seem to have worked out well for the militia-men.

[CURMUDGEON5]

My understanding of it was that the 5/4 was whether the DC ban was unconstitutional and it was a 9/0 that the 2A was an individual right.

Now that interpretation I REALLY like. If that's accurate, the four dissenting judges have been partially redeemed in my judgement. (That's one of the problems with legalese; interpretation.) The Navajo code talkers drove the Japanese military crazy during WW2.