I thought the 2nd Amendment was referring to "well-regulated" militias, not state-regulated ones.
The only militias are state militias. The Congress has the right to organize, arm and discipline (i.e. provide standards, training protocols, etc.) the militias to execute laws (now THERE'S a scary thought in certain scenarios), repel invasions and suppress insurrections. See U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8:
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;
"Well regulated" in the 18th century meant "well trained" or "disciplined." Alternatively, it meant "functioning as designed or efficiently." As in a clock that is regulated to keep time accurately, or a double-barreled shotgun that was regulated so that the shot from both barrels would hit the same spot at a particular range.
I'm a lawyer, though NOT a Constitutional scholar. It seems to me that the phrasing of the argument by the Supremes...
“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?”
...means that the decision is going to be heavily based upon the DC Circuit's opinion. I think that this is fantastic for us. My read is that the 2nd will be narrowly interpreted to guarantee a pre-existing individual right. While the ruling won't state anything about incorporation, the fact that you are dealing with a fundamental right (akin in importance to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc.) almost guarantees that the next time afterwards that a non-DC citizen/resident challenges a state or local law/regulation, we'll win the incorporation argument. Goodby gun bans.
I will go out on a limb and state that if this ruling goes our way, then Title 18, Section 922(o) will soon thereafter be ruled unconstitutional (and will likely be among the first things challenged). It is a clear gun ban that is virtually identical to the DC ban, with 2 differences: 1) it is federal; and 2) it bans "machine guns." Being federal, we don't need incorporation to successfully challenge it. Being a ban on ALL post-'86 full autos (including those currently fielded by the armed forces) is a violation of the
Miller interpretation of the 2A.
I'm beginning to feel good. If the ruling goes our way, what will the Dem nominee say (because it won't be handed down until late June, when the winner will be all be official)? If he/she who must not be mentioned comes out non-committal, some of the Dem base may stay home. If he/she who must not be mentioned comes out against it, you're going to have a hornet's nest of recently vindicated gun owners - and wannabee gun owners in currently repressed states - who will turn out in droves to vote against him/she who must not be mentioned, to make sure that we get Justices who will continue to uphold the ruling. Win/win for us.
