Finally found a "Respondent's Brief" of the Heller vs DC Supreme Court case on what the 2nd Amendment means.

For your reading... http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-0290bs.pdf

Seemed pretty complete, but wished they'd left this out;
"Arms that may have great military utility but which are
inappropriate for civilian purposes are still sensibly
excluded from the Second Amendment’s protection, as
civilians would not commonly use them."

Agree. That is unacceptably vague, and leaves open the possibility of bans on ersatz assault weapons and the like, when it is clear the Second Amendment is interested in particular that people should maintain and be proficient with whatever small arms are typical for a soldier to use in their day and age. That is what the militia clause is all about.

. . ."Arms that may have great military utility but which are inappropriate for civilian purposes are still sensibly
excluded from the Second Amendment’s protection, as
civilians would not commonly use them."
"SENSIBLY excluded"???? From WHOSE viewpoint, Schumer's, Kennedy's, Feinstein's, et. al.?

Well, what they might mean are things like shoulder-fired rocket launchers and the like, but what THEY mean and what Schumersteinnedy types might mean are worlds apart.

But it's a good thing that language is in the brief, and not in the decision (we'd hope).

I'm not an attorney, so I'm not exactly sure what the difference is between a full case report and the Respondent's Brief, but let's hope there is a better definition of that language in the actual full version or argument.

How are we going to muster a well armed malisha without a shoulder mounted rocket?

How are we going to muster a well armed malisha without a shoulder mounted rocket?

Excellent point, Chief. I believe that the rockets, planes, tanks, atom bombs and what not, will have to be captured from the enemy.

There's lots to find of concern here:"...the arms whose individual possession is protected by
the Second Amendment are those arms that (1) are of the
kind in common use, such that civilians would be expected
to have them for ordinary purposes, and (2) would have
military utility in time of need. A weapon that satisfies
only one of these requirements would not be protected by
the Second Amendment."
So on the one hand, while fully automatic firearms are legal these days, and would have a military utility, because civilians do not own them for "ordinary purposes" (will shooting full auto be considered an "ordinary purpose" of civilians?), then they can be banned and prohibited from ownership? Conversely, because muzzleloading rifles are owned for ordinary purposes but don't really have a military utility in this day and age, they too could be banned and prohibited from ownership? Apparently so... that's quite the test of legality they seem happy to accept.

It seems they are referring to Miller in this instance, and later on muse that "In that respect, Miller may be in tension with itself. There is no justification to limit the Second Amendment’s protection to arms that have military utility." But still... they further observe "The lineal descendants of personal arms of the type in predictable civilian usage are thus protected, but modern weapons of the type that serve no ordinary civilian function are not." That opens a very large door... which they promptly walk through: "Arms that may have great military utility but which are inappropriate for civilian purposes are still sensibly excluded from the Second Amendment’s protection, as civilians would not commonly use them."Respondent observes that the right to arms protects two
of the most fundamental rights—the defense of one’s life
inside one’s home, and the defense of society against
tyrannical usurpation of authority.
So... does the right to arms exist for defense of one's life outside of one's home?

Lots of instructive information there, but some of the rational is troubling.

To your last point, in studying to teach a women's self-defense class, I ran across a statistic in Paxton Quigley's book that 80% of assaults on women occur when they are in transit between home and some other location (work, shopping, evening out, etcetera). So, being allowed only to defend yourself at home is pretty lame, and guarantees you are defenseless in most assault situations; at least, you are if you are female. I have no idea what the stats for males are, but expect they are also mostly attacked away from home.

I can see the argument that explosive devices require too much expertise to control the damage they do and pose too great a fire hazard for most people to possess them outside a training environment. I think the citizenry should get training in their use in war, but a proper armory would be the most reasonable place to keep them. I don't want my neighbor's dangerous barbecue gas burner practices to trigger a leveling of the neighborhood.

I understand, despite the Ashcroft position on the individual right meaning of the 2nd Ammendment, the current Solicitor General feels otherwise. I got the following from an attorney friend:

A bit of disappointing news. John Lott had a piece in the National Review Online last week about the Solicitor General having submitted an Amicus brief in the DC gun ban case supporting the ban. According to the article, the brief takes the position that the 2nd amendment is not an individual right. That would represent a change of position in the Bush administration since Ashcroft as Bush's Attorney General took the position that it was an individual right.

So, I don't know where the Bush administration actually is on the subject? After first being glad to see the Supreme Court take the case, I am getting the uneasy sense that authorities are tending to weigh in either directly against the excellent D.C. circuit court decision, or with support for it that includes caveats favoring allowing a lot of other regulation. Possibly part of the general political mood swing away from conservative control of government? In any event, the government drive to control, control, control, is unabated.

I don't see any upcoming administration from either party being pro-gun either and that's a major problem facing our second amendment rights. Have to admit that I'm really dumb when it come to politics though.

As much as I detest lobbies, guess the only real support we'll have is through such groups in attempting to preserve the full weight of the 2nd Amendment.

Lots of criticism by gun owners of the NRA, but let's face it folks - there just aren't that many lobbies out there with the power of the NRA to keep hammering at government and courts on these issues. Best suck it up and give them some backing if you enjoy your present rights.

Thinking seriously of upgrading my Endowment membership to Patron, with another contribution the the legislative fund.

Interestingly enough, I got a phone call this morning from the NRA asking for a $75 contribution for the pending case. After telling them that the briefs have already been filed they told me that it was going to cost the NRA $1.5 million for the oral arguments. I told them that it was my understanding that NRA lawyers originally opposed the case when it was before the district court and that I would not be contributing to the NRA for this "legal defense" but would continue my membership. Robert Levy, one of the plaintiff's attorneys, from the Cato Institute financed the case out of his own pocket through the appellate process. He stated that NRA lawyers tried to persuade him not to continue with the case and then tried to "scuttle" the case when he refused to stop (ABA Journal November 2007 p50). I am very interested in seeing how the chips fall from this case. The DOJ's brief (summary on NRA-ILA homepage) claims there is an individual right to bear a firearm but the appellate court should use less scrutiny in reviewing prohibitive statutes. I really hope - and pray - the court gets this one right!