Facinating.
Here's what jumped out at me.
Nor has Haney proven several facts logically necessary to establish a Second Amendment violation. As a threshold matter, he must show that
(1) he is part of a state militia;
(2) the militia, and his participation therein, is "well regulated" by the state;
(3) machineguns are used by that militia; and
(4) his possession of the machinegun was reasonably connected to his militia service.
None of these are established.
View Quote
1. 2A DOES NOT mention a "state militia." It merely refers to a militia being necessary for security of that state. The Militia Act of 1792 CLEARLY establishes BOTH a state milita (organized militia) and a NON-STATE militia, the "unorganized militia." 2A is referring to BOTH, either of which he CAN qualify for, one of which he DEFINITELY qualifies for. hence hi IS part of a militia, and this threashold, that he be part of a STATE militia, is bogus. He need only prove he is part of A militia, which is demonstrably true.
2. NO WHERE does 2A indicate that militia MUST be "well regulated" BY the state. NOWHERE. Only that it BE "well-regulated" - by someone, anyone. Since "well regulated" means trained and disciplined, is the court arguing that the state has neglected its responsibility to train and discipline the unorganized militia???
3. What present day militia doesn't use machine guns??? Are the Nat. Guard supplied only bolt action Mausers or something? Are the state guard given muskets today??? Machine guns are used by EVERY militia. This is a red herring.
4. His existence as part of the unorganized militia, by which he can be called upon by the governor of his state under the Militia Act of 1792, establishes the connection of his machine gun to his militia service.
This Haney guy has MONSTROUS cahones. I hope his cahones just got bigger with the Justice Depts' recent pronouncement, and he appeals. Might as well - he gots 33 months to sit around and do nothing.
The courts on the hand have traded in their cahones for "precedents."