Xanthro, for the last time, I'm not interested in your argument. I'm concerned with what the courts actually have said, not what you or the NRA think they should say. If you can get them to sign off on your tortured argument about "troops" and "militias" and reverse Miller and invalidate part or all of the 2A, then go for it; you'll no doubt be a hero to insecure gun nuts throughout the red states. Until then, this is the law of the land:

The right to keep and bear arms must have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." (1) "THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS A RIGHT HELD BY THE STATES, AND DOES NOT PROTECT THE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON BY A PRIVATE CITIZEN." (2) In short, the 2A gives no gun rights to gun nuts.

(1) United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (The key U.S. S.Ct. 2A case)

(2) Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98, 101 (9th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added)

+ Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 803 (2003)

I'm still waiting for the "hundreds" if not "thousands" of "contrary" 2A decisions I've been promised. In the meantime, I'm not a grammar Nazi, but it is annoying to have to spend extra time re-reading things because the writer cannot write clearly or spell correctly.

Xanthro, it is less frustrating and more satisfying to argue with someone who knows what he or she is talking about; so let me help you out. You are looking for these two opinions:

U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D. Tex. 1999), in which a U.S. distict court judge, after a long discussion of the history and meaning of the 2A, dismissed a federal case on the ground that Emerson's "individual" 2A right to possess guns was being violated; and

U.S. v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), in which the federal appeals court in New Orleans, after an even longer discussion of the history and meaning of the 2A, overturned that judge's decision (yet agreed with his reasoning in re the 2A and individual rights).

Both opinions are well-written and probably constitute your best argument in favor of the 2A as a "guarantee" of the right of individual U.S. citizens to possess guns. Your tortured "troops" v. "militia" argument, incidentally, was considered but quickly discarded. (Ouch.)

I'm not sure if 10 against 1 constitutes a "split" among the federal appeals courts; and the 5th Circuit's holding against Mr. Emerson (notwithstanding his newly-discovered 2A rights) might be why the U.S. S.Ct. declined to take the case. Still, you oughtta know.

Xanthro, the Emerson case IS binding in the 5th Circuit: Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. It WAS appealed to the Supreme Court, which declined to take the case. You assert that "many" other decisions supposedly adopt this novel reading of the 2A, but can't name even one; and while you repeatedly accuse me of misquoting Miller, you won't say how.

Does Miller not hold that the right to possess guns must have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia?" Did the court not look to state law to determine if Mr. Miller's sawed-off shotgun had any such relationship to his state's militia? Did I just imagine these things, just as Bush-Cheney imagined WMD's in Iraq or an operational relationship between Saddam and Osama (who bin-Forgotten)?

The good news, I guess, is that you now realize the foolishness of your "troops versus militia" argument, and admit that "Miller" is the law of the land. Hopefully you can also admit, as the 5th Circuit noted in Emerson, that all of the other federal appeals courts that have considered the matter (i.e., nine or ten out of twelve) disagree with the 5th Circuit, and that that is the law of the land within those circuits. Xanthro? Buehler?

Xanthro, Xanthro, Xanthro. Let's start by noting that even though you acknowledged my request for the name of even one of the "many" cases you claim support your version of the 2A, you STILL cannot name one damn case. Of course, that is no surprise at all.

You obviously do not understand that federal appeals courts, if there is no clear guidance from the Supreme Court, can and do look at how similar issues have been handled in the other circuits. The 5th Circuit in Emerson, for example, noted that virtually every other circuit has rejected the idea that the 2A is for the benefit of private citizens, not states.

You agree that according to Miller a weapon must have "a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," and that IED's and RPG's as well as sawed-off shotguns "might" not have such a needed relationship. (cf. Iraqi insurgency.) That's good; but then you flatly deny that the court in Miller looked to state law for evidence that might establish such a relationship. Oops. How embarrassing for you.

The Supreme Court in Miller quoted at great length a Massachusetts statute from 1784; a Virginia statute from 1785; and a New York statute from 1786; all of which detailed the types and quantities of arms their citizen militias must maintain (e.g., a well-oiled musket and twenty bullets, "six fathoms of match", etc.), before concluding as follows:

"Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the [idea that the 2A protects sawed-off shotguns]."

if your state wants to require that in the event space aliens land every adult male shall arm himself with musket & shot, an AK-47, or a Jedi lightsabre, the 2A will protect you. Otherwise, the 2A is no barrier to the gun control laws that are needed in the U.S. Sorry.