Now that Scalia has died, are gun-lovers feeling...

[jimmy the one]

150. in brief

sarisataka: After spending a few paragraphs indicating the militia is everyone capable of of providing defense, the court makes a passing reference to a lower court ruling that is in opposition to their previous statements. It appears that SCOTUS needs to weigh in to remove any confusion that may result from this.

That 1935 adams quote was from a dept of justice brief representing the US govts position on the 1939 miller case to the 1939 scotus, which was used by the 1939 supreme court to support it's own opinion on the militia. The US govt won the miller case.

doj brief, 1938: In the only other case in which the provisions of the National Firearm Act have been assailed as being in violation of the Second Amendment (United States v. Adams {1935}, the contention was summarily rejected as follows: The second amendment to the Constitution, providing, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," has no application to this act. The Constitution does not grant the privilege to racketeers and desperadoes to carry weapons of the character dealt with in the act. It refers to the militia, a protective force of government; to the collective body and not individual rights.

supreme court 1939 miller uses the above paragraph to support this following contention: The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such {militia} forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

sarisatak: the court makes a passing reference to a lower court ruling that is in opposition to their previous statements.

No it is not in opposition to previous statements by the 1939 scotus. Since white males adults were 'the militia' they had the right to keep & bear arms, & bring them to militia service. They could own guns of course, but the 2ndA gave them the basis for doing so, as they were the militia. You cited:
the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Yes, they were (tentatively) obliged to provide their own arms for themselves when attending militia muster, since that is why they had the right to keep & bear arms (eventually an impermanent requirement). And recall pictures of armed militia men with bows, swords, & pitchforks.