gc/ct: There is a case from the Supreme Court of Oregon which explored the distinction between military and militia arms in detail. I do not have the cite off-hand. But I recall the case involved a sword, not a firearm. The court did an historical survey which (to its satisfaction) showed that militia arms did include the sword but not heavy weapons, which the States usually kept themselves in state armories (we had an old one of those in West Haven, near where I lived when there). I'll try and find the case, but I have been very ill over the weekend, indisposed. * * * Well, the debugging is relevant to Parker. I don't think some people appreciate the danger here. Justice Thomas has wanted to get a Second-Amendment case before the court for years. And division of the circuits is a primary way to get a case before the court. We have division of the circuits, Fifth and Ninth. So, there is a chance to get in. HOWEVER, As all of you know, I have serious reservations about Parker, because there is no focus whatsoever on militia arms. Also, commentators are just wrong that this court won't hear firearms cases -- in both United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1991) and Printz v. United States, ____ U.S. ___ (1995), the court invalidated federal legislation which infringed upon local control of firearms (which is kind of the reverse of what Parker seeks to do). In the Bailey case in Connecticut, their supreme court received a self-defense-only case from the NRA in an effort to void the State's assault-rifle ban. Not only did that court rule exactly as I have been telling you (and upheld the ban), it also added a footnote that militias were obsolete, and that therefore it is unlikely that anyone could bring a successful claim under the "defense of the state" half of Article I, section 15. IT CAN HAPPEN, GUYS. And this court is very conservative. SIX JUSTICES (including the late Mr. Rehnquist and Mrs. O'Connor) have used exact language I've used in this thread, writing in other places [e.g. Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991)]. But, we don't even get a hearing if there is a bad precedent in front of us. "Certiorari" means just that: Appeal by permission. If Parker gets in, then screws up, every gun owner in America loses. See: I have done some homework.