Reply #171: My goodness, you do go on and on. [View All]

And yet you can't seem to grasp fairly simple points. The fact that California citizens aren't forbidden to own guns means that they are allowed to own guns. It doesn't mean that they are members of an armed citizen militia. Arms do not make up any part of the definition or the mission of the unorganized militia described in California law. Therefore, arms, while some members may privately own them, are irrelevant to that militia as defined, which makes it irrelevant to RKBA and the Second Amendment. Some of the members of the California unorganized militia would be ordained ministers, too (since it is every able-bodied male), but that doesn't make it a religious organization.

Try to untangle the two ideas. Yes, California citizens may own some kinds of guns under some circumstances. No, their ownership of those guns has nothing to do with their membership in the "unorganized militia" as defined in California law. It is permitted because it is not forbidden. It is not permitted because of the unorganized militia. It is irrelevant to the unorganized militia. Therefore the unorganized militia, as defined, is an unarmed militia, even though some of its members may privately possess some legal firearms. Get it now? I'm betting not, but we'll see.

You depend entirely too heavily on purely semantic arguments. "The collective rights argument" is not a single factual entity. It is a characterization of a variety of different arguments. What Miller does do is establish that there is no Second Amendment right outside of the context of the preservation and effectiveness of the militia. Whether that supports "the collective rights argument" is a matter of definition, and arguments about definitions are a waste of anybody's time.

Silveira has not been overturned on appeal. That's the fact. Your opinion of it is just that, your opinion. The fact that others share your opinion does not mean one single thing regarding the actual law. Not only has Silveira not been overturned, but it fits perfectly into the rest of the standing case law. All of the standing case law on the Second Amendment has supported restrictions on gun ownership. Not a single case has overruled any gun control measure or supported any gun owner.

It must be tough to have every single case decided against you. I sure wouldn't want to be stuck on your side of this argument.