Miller had a sawed off shotgun, IIRC under 16" in length which was illegal under the 1934 National Firearms Act. So he was arrested and apparently the district court disagreed and either over turned the conviction or vacated it. The US Attorney appealed the decision and took it to the SCOTUS. In May of 1939 the court ruled that the government could regulate firearms in such a manner and overturned the district court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prohibited the legal counsel for Miller (who died in April of that year) from traveling. One of the interesting points of the decision was that the Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia. So by that one alone everyone should be able to own an M4 or M16 since an organized militia would be expected to purchase and carry weapons that match those carried by the active duty military, reserves, and national guard. Other points found by the court that transporting your own firearms across state lines involves interstate commerce. Wiki Link
Thanks for the clarification. I think I would disagree with that. I think the 2nd Amendment is saying that the people are the ones who regulate the militia.
However the courts and congress have defined the militia. IIRC the militia is every male between the ages of 18 and 45.
Well, funny you ask. You are in the militia automatically, so if that were a requirement, it would be already satisfied. But no, it doesn't "require" us to be in the militia, more precisely, it recognizes that since we are the militia, we need guns.
...and you would be wrong. The wording is: Now I'm not going to diagram that old school--partly because I forget how and partly because I don't know how to do all the arrows and fishbones and such in diagramming a sentence on a computer--but what it says is this: Because we need to have citizens that know how to use firearms in order to protect our nation, Americans are allowed to own and carry arms and the government can't do anything that interferes with that.
You're spot on here. In Kirk's defense, though, it certainly was in keeping with the intentions of the Framers that, as a logical consequence of the 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms would serve as a means to keep the government in line should it fall into disrepair. You know...kinda like it is now. Maybe that's what he was getting at?
I'm way too old for it. Which qualifies me as a chicken hawk! Since I don't have to worry about getting MY ass shot off, let's go to war and kill some ragheads! Yee Haw!