"State-regulated" militia?
We're going to lose this one, I think, just based on the Court's choice of that one hyphenated term. The constitution does not refer to a "state-regulated" militia. It refers to a "well regulated" militia:
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.
If the court enters into this with the presumption that "regulated" means subjected to state regulations, rather than with a straight and true aim, then we've already lost significant ground: the definition of "well regulated."
This is going to end horribly, IMHO.
bookmarking for later
Those are plainly two different terms.
Methinks the wording is to completely avoid any “collective right” discussion - which leaves the presumption of an “individual right”. We’re not going to lose - we’ve already won!
IMO, the reason the SCOTUS worded it that particular way is so that when they rule in favor of the individual's RKBA, they also strike down the presumptions in legality of state regulation or state controlled infringements upon the basics of that right.
FWIW, I hope your perspective is wrong and we can all say, "Told you so..."
I believe it is worded that way because that is argument that DC and other gun-grabbers are making. In other words, DC believes there is no right to gun ownership without some relationship to the militia.