Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
I don't think the SCOTUS said that militia service or membership is "unconnected" to or "divorced from" the RKBA. I think what they said is that the RKBA is not dependent on being a member of the militia. The connection is there and it seems to me that both Scalia and Alito recognized it, but they were clear in saying that the core right to keep and bear arms does not require that one be a member of the militia.
To say otherwise would raise a lot of issues nobody wants raised. For example, the Militia Act defines the militia as able-bodied males 18 to (I believe) 45 years of age, plus female members of the National Guard and Naval Auxiliary (or whatever the naval militia is called in the act). So ... I'm a Vietnam veteran and now very much a senior citizen. I'm several decades past the upper limit for the militia. Does that mean I have no RKBA? What about (oh,oh!) wimmin? If the RKBA were to be strictly based on membership in the militia, NO women other than National Guard and Naval Whatever would have any RKBA.
I don't think even the ardent gun grabbers want to tell women they have less rights than a class of men aged 18 to 45.
I have been up against this very argument the past three months on one of the liberal, Brit centric forums I used to frequent. This is the very assertion being made, that I not being male, would have no RKBA despite the fact that I am an Honorably Discharged Army Veteran.