Come on, Bridgier... this is your big shining example that's supposed to bring the whole 2nd Amendment as an individual right into question.
And you can't even quote me anything you see as mildly convincing from the text?
Here's the relevant part, as I see it.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.
This case was really only about limiting which types of arms were protected to those with a practical military application. Even on that front, it was probably wrongly decided.
But the one thing it doesn't do is take away from the fact that this right is universally held by the citizenry. Unless you want to argue that this right only belongs to males. In that case, the floor is yours
If anything, this decision makes exercising our 2nd Amendment rights sound more like a civic duty than an option.
[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (6/29/2010)]