What Arms?

[javacodeman]

Just reading the Majority opinion on the D.C. law:

To be sure, as the District argues, the Miller Court did draw
upon the prefatory clause to interpret the term “Arms” in the
operative clause. As we note below, interpreting “Arms” in
light of the Second Amendment’s militia purpose makes sense
because “Arms” is an open-ended term that appears but once in
the Constitution and Bill of Rights. But Miller does not
command that we limit perfectly sensible constitutional text
such as “the right of the people” in a manner inconsistent with
other constitutional provisions. Similarly, the Second
Amendment’s use of “keep” does not need to be recast in
artificially military terms in order to conform to Miller.

Seems like a home run to me. I think the court is using the Districts own argument to say that any "Arms" are okay (RPG, full-auto, tanks, etc.) because "Arms" is the only word in the 2nd amendment that should have a "military" interpretation.

Comments?

 

[javacodeman]

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show
that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of
less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has
some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say
that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to
keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not
within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of
the ordinary military equipment or that its use could
contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2
Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
Miller, 307 U.S. at 178 (emphasis added)."

The quotation makes
apparent that the Court was focused only on what arms are
protected by the Second Amendment, see Emerson, 270 F.3d at
224, and not the collective or individual nature of the right. If
the Miller Court intended to endorse the government’s first
argument, i.e., the collective right view, it would have
undoubtedly pointed out that the two defendants were not
affiliated with a state militia or other local military organization.
Id.

Furthermore, since .22 are not part of the current militia, they may not be protected by the 2nd amendment. But "assault weapons" would be.