Reply #145: Same old useless, dishonest stuff. [View All]

Miller was decided in 1939. The facts have changed since then regarding the citizen militia.

I can't avoid the conclusion that you are being deliberately obtuse about the armed vs. unarmed militia. The unorganized citizen militia described in California law is clearly an unarmed militia. No arms are provided or provided for. The point is not that only the state can provide arms. The point is that the unorganized militia, as defined, is not an armed militia. Arms play no part in the militia as defined. Therefore, such a militia cannot be considered relevant to any Second Amendment right to keep and bear ARMS. Get it now? That is, if you can bear to stop calling me Stalin long enough to think for a second.

The Emerson decision of 2001 decided diddley about Emerson's Second Amendment rights. It went on and on about the history of the Second Amendment and its interpretation thereof, but when it got to the point of applying the Second Amendment to Emerson's case, it had to admit that there was no application. It neither granted nor denied "standing." It simply said that the Second Amendment did not apply. The 2004 decision agreed, saying that Emerson's Second Amendment argument was without merit and had no bearing on RKBA one way or the other.

This "standing" bunkum of yours is the straw you choose to clutch at, in the face of unanimous decisions against gun owners and in favor of gun control laws. Miller, Emerson, Hickman, and Silveira are all quite in agreement in their effect and in their judgements. That's why none of them has been overturned. Nobody sues to overturn irrelevant verbiage. Only a decision may be appealed, and all the decisions were in favor of gun controls and against gun owners. That's the fact. Deal with it.