AlexanderA
Member
I just want to point out that the original militia of the 1790's were not volunteers. All free, able-bodied males were supposed to be enrolled, and to report for the annual musters with their own personal weapons. This universality is important, because it underlies the view that the "militia" is the "people," and that therefore the people (as individuals) are entitled to all the standard weapons of the military, under the 2nd Amendment. That's the rationale that should have been used in the Heller case, but unfortunately wasn't. Quite the opposite, in fact. Under no circumstances did Scalia & co. want to legalize machine guns for private individuals.Ultimately there is a lot at stake. This is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, for the people, defended by volunteers raised from the people (militia).
By extension, Scalia's rationale in the Heller case is going to be used to uphold a future AWB. That could have been avoided if the 2nd Amendment had been interpreted as I outlined above, building on the Miller case. (My forlorn hope is that an "originalist" Supreme Court majority might revisit the thinking behind Heller -- but I'm not holding my breath. Remember that Scalia himself was touted as being an "originalist.")