In spite of SCOTUS v Miller, 1939
Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right.Prima Facie, this ruling sounds entirely justified, however it ignores a secondary property of the Law. The Second Amendment reads:
Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.Note that this statement consists of a single sentence separated only by commas, which would support the notion that even if you do not currently belong to an established militia, in case of neccessity that the people may be required to help in defending the security of the free state, your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But what happened to the stipulation that this right should be "well regulated"? In the case of private ownership that would mean registration of the arms and a demonstrated proficiency and safe use of those arms. The ruling also specified that this was an exceptional case, because it was in context of owning a handgun, but ownership of a sawed-off shotgun was against the law. IOW a regulation of certain arms. Thus you can get arrested for owning a sawed-off shotgun as it was considered a dangerous weapon with no practical use. How then is it possible that today we can buy semi-automatic weapons with large magazines and certainly should be considered a dangerous weapon in the hands of an unskilled or mentally unstable person? Should that not be "well regulated"? That phrase "well regulated" has become completely obscured and as the law is applied today, we might as well strike it altogether and the meaning of the law would not change one bit as it stands today. A militia is by definition well regulated, thus in the language of the time, it means that private ownership should also be subject to "regulation". Any legal experts who can defend against this argument?