The problem is we are back to that "Militia" argument. "A well regulated militia" is on it's face not an "unorganized militia."
You have that 'problem', not me. -- A militia of the people is necessary to the security of a free state; thus, -- no infringements on arms; -- IE; no unreasonable regulations.
Like it or not, in 2007, it's hard to sustain a claim that all able-bodied men belong to the "reserve militia" when that Militia has no meetings, no measurement of mission standards, no formal structure, no leaders, no rules, in fact, no regulation whatsoever... and a large number of able bodied men are convicted felons or actually in prison.
Dream on. We are all 'militia', and can be called upon to defend our country.
I realize that Presser v. Illinois, 1886, held that we are all members of a "reserve militia" and therefore the several states should not interfere with gun ownership. But "Miller" SCOTUS, 1939 held that there is no constitutional right to own a sawed-off shotgun.
SCOTUS 'rulings' cannot change the Constitution. You should know that as a lawyer.
Actually, no. The Constitution says what SCOTUS says it does.
Dream on. 'Marbury' says different, and has never been disputed by anyone since 1803; -- except you.
That concept goes back to Tanney and before. As a lawyer supporting the NRA, etc., I hope SCOTUS never revisits Miller or Presser, although I am very interested in the DC cases moving forward.
You can go several ways is reviewing Miller. Did the Court so decide because a sawed-off shotgun is not a weapon commonly used by an armed army/militia? (If so, then lots of guys walking point in RVN might disagree!) Was their thinking that Miller was not a member of a "well regulated militia," therefore he had no constitutional right to posses that weapon, and perhaps any other? One of my jobs as a lawyer/Investigative Reporter was to have viewers look beyond the instant case and see the practical applications of a law or decision.
One of your jobs as a lawyer is to support & defend the Constitution as written. -- The practical application of Miller permits infringements. -- As a conservative lawyer, you see some problems with assuming we have an "absolute" constitutional guarantee to keep and bear arms. --- I see some problems with that assumption. -- No right is absolute.
Another incorrect assumption. Taking the Constitution "as written" is dangerous.
Dream on. -- It's becoming apparent that you're making an 'argument from authority', having declared yourself as that authority.
For example; if we were to take the Constitution as written, the government could ban Rush Limbaugh, Bortz, Hannity and others. There is no Freedom of the Airways guarantee in COTUS. There is freedom of the Press, but radio uses no presses.
Amusingly wordgame you're playing. The 1st covers radio. Get real.
There would be no guarantees of interstate travel for pleasure. For commerce, yes, but for a tourist trip to Florida, sorry, it's not permitted by Georgia and Alabama unless you pay a $100 tax to drive through their states.
Whatever. Play your game if it makes you happy.
The confidentiality of your medical records? Sorry, I'm suing you and I want your doctor to disclose all he or she has treated you for. No Constitutional guarantees against that.
Try reading the 4th.
Many items on the list of benefits that we now consider Constitutional "rights" are not enumerated. Are you willing to give them up because they are not spelled out in the COTUS.
No, I prefer to read the 9th, which deals with enumeration.
PS, sorry, but you can't read this message. I forgot, there is no Constitutional guarantee of Freedom of the Internet.
Fine. 'Forget' what you want.
-- I'm off for a week or so fishing in Baja. -- Maybe I'll be able to visit the law school you went to in, -- where, La Paz?