Found this one while gobbling up all the goodness being written about the 2nd Amendment ruling. Dirtcrashr noted this comment by one Chris:
.. just as the First Amendment free speech clause covers modern communication devices unknown to the founding generation, e.g., radio and television, and the Fourth Amendment protects telephonic conversation from a “search,†the Second Amendment protects the possession of the modern-day equivalents of the colonial pistol.
Yeah, baby! To the blogroll he goes! (Note: I’m just a follower, Anthroblogogy found him and linked him first.) Be sure to check out the rest of his site — aquariums, a gorgeous cockatoo, and a fine collection of firearms. Seems like a good combo of interests to me!
Actually, if a very STRICT constructionist Court were to hold that the Second DID apply only to militias, it would probably let us organize the militias, probably let us have (militarily-useful) infantry weapons such as machine guns and grenade launchers, but it might NOT let us have very many pistols. Pistols, you see, were generally NOT issued to the foot soldiers of the militia back then. Horse cavalry carried them, as did officers (who did NOT carry shoulder arms, usually).
In today’s military, pistols are STILL reserved for officers, pilots, and some few support personnel. So, there is a CONTINUING military tradition AGAINST the general carry of pistols by any “well-regulated” military ordganization, and so, militias, which are supposed to mimic those military organizations, might be stuck with limited carry of pistols for officers.
Not saying that interpretation of the Second will wind up this way, but if a HUGE military catastrophe happens right here in the homeland, in the recover from it, militias will HAVE to be allowed, but martial law WILL be around for a while, and the Second might very well be re-interpreted as a right for arming the militia, which it was originally.