> I'll leave it to you to decide how any of this conforms to the variations and permutations of the "standard model." > Bob Spitzer >
Forget the "standard model." Let's assume the "standard model" is NRA-funded hogwash: what is *your* theory? Or at least, what criteria define the class of "militia theories" you consider valid? And having identified the criteria, can those criteria be reconciled with actual militia law? At any stage of your research have you tried to do that? Without a legally coherent articulation of the "militia theory," categorization of the theories is impossible. You keep directing us to this locked door and insisting there's a theory behind it which contains all other valid theories. Well, if you've got the key, show us the thing. If you don't have the key, then how do you know what is behind the door and whether it is valid? On one hand, Congress holds the ultimate power to decide which citizens will be designated by statute as "militia." (See my article) On the other hand, we have an amendment which manifestly places some militia-related right beyond the power of Congress. Either that or we have to declare it as nullified by statute, which most of us think is an inadmissible proposition. Glenn's model reconciles the conlaw by arguing that the "right to keep and bear arms" is not dependent on statutory designation as militia, though the right may serve to facilitate the maintenance of a militia. How do you reconcile your "militia model" with the conlaw governing the militia? I find it strikingly odd that while your categorizations are somehow predicated on government militia powers, you have not identified the contours of those powers under the Constitution and cannot describe how your preferred theories relate to them. Norman Heath
