Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
Isn't he saying that would amount to passing a law which circumvents the amendment, otherwise what would the objection be?
I think he is saying that times have changed and the fit between the well-regulated militia and the right to keep and bear arms isn't there anymore but that still doesn't mean we don't have a right to own firearms in common use for our personal self defense. This is in contast to the Brady's who said the right to keep and bear arms was only
related to service in the militia. What I have heard Walter Dellinger say in other interviews is that if
a state wanted to raise a militia and arm it, Congress couldn't stop them from doing so and that was what the 2A protected. SCOTUS disagreed.