Re your #8 -
It seems that Scalia was using his rifle in NY for cometitive shooting in a military school.
As far as I know, the military hasn't had a lot to do with "hunting" either lately.
But then again, the 2nd A. really isn't about the standing military, either. Although I think it was presumed during the founding that the National Military (which was supposed to be kept at a minimum) and the local Militias were supposed to be working cooperatively.
Of course, after the Civil War, the Federal Gov't. seems to have reconsidered the idea of relative local / State military autonomy, and that was pretty much the end of the "Militia" system as a serious tactical element in America.
By the mid 1890s the "Militia" became "National Guard", subject to federalization.
So much for "State's Rights", as Roe V. Wade has pretty much demonstrated.
Well perhaps with S. Dakota passing a ban on abortion,
States Rights will be revisited again real soon
But then again, the 2nd A. really isn't about the standing military, either. Although I think it was presumed during the founding that the National Military (which was supposed to be kept at a minimum) and the local Militias were supposed to be working cooperatively.
Of course, after the Civil War, the Federal Gov't. seems to have reconsidered the idea of relative local / State military autonomy, and that was pretty much the end of the "Militia" system as a serious tactical element in America.
By the mid 1890s the "Militia" became "National Guard", subject to federalization.
“Of course, after the Civil War, the Federal Gov't. seems to have reconsidered the idea of relative local / State military autonomy, and that was pretty much the end of the "Militia" system as a serious tactical element in America. By the mid 1890s the "Militia" became "National Guard", subject to federalization.”
Historically and legally inaccurate. Too many errors to cover in detail so here are the bullets
1.The courts have recognized the existence of the Militia without exception, since the civil war. From Presser v Illinois – 1879
“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing
arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and earing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful
resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.”
2. The reserve militia of the United States is a concept and legal construct completely separate from the National Guard. The idea the one morphed into the other is a liberal construct not backed by legislation or legal decision.