"I'll leave it to you to decide how any of this conforms to the
variations and permutations of the 'standard model.'"
I'm just trying to be clear on what your position is. Would you say
that Gene Volokh's "Commonplace" papers
(http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/common.htm,
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/amazing.htm) "adopt the militia view,"
since they both allow for the following, which you say "describe pretty
well the militia view?"
a) The type of weapons that the Second Amendment means when it says
"arms" can be limited to the type of weapons soldiers ordinarily use.
b) The right to keep and bear arms can be regulated without taking
it away?
How about Glenn Reynolds? Do his papers also "adopt the militia
view?"
You've said that "In all, 13 prior law journal articles ... were
published before 1960, and all of them adopt the militia view." If all
you really meant by that was that some connection to the militia was
mentioned in each paper, and it doesn't matter if some or all of them
also said that the Second Amendment protects an individual right of the
people to keep and bear their privately-owned arms, then your assertion
is amazingly weak (eye-poppingly, even).
Will you please clarify?
