And now something to make NRA go frothing at the mouth

[Technoid]

WASHINGTON -- In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.

Click on the text to see the rest of the article

[Gurm]

Click on the text to see the rest of the article

A militia, of course, is comprised of individual citizens with no official capacity whatsoever. In other words, if it applies to militias, it applies to individuals. DUH!

[KRSESQ]

Besides which, any time a group of citizens forms a militia Uncle Sam has an epileptic seizure and gets midieval on their asses.

Kevin

[Dr Mordrid]

Yhis has been adjudicated so many times that it's not even funny. Every time either DC or the 9th Apellate rules anti-gun and the Supremes whack it down, hard.

[cjolley]

Yhis has been adjudicated so many times that it's not even funny. Every time either DC or the 9th Apellate rules anti-gun and the Supremes whack it down, hard.

What on earth are you talking about?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 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.''7

I should just quote the whole thing.
It's been adjudicated all right.
And "Well Regulated Militia" has been interpreted exactly the way the plain language sounds for over 100 years.

[MultimediaMan]

One only has to look at the preamble of the Gun Control Act of 1968 to see that the the 2nd. Amendment is an Individual Right... Section 101 reads:

...and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes...

The Miller decision was and is a ruling on whether they could tax firearms.