It is not legal argument, but historical argument that involves historical precedents that inform legal interpretation.
James B. Whisker is a professor of political science at West Virginia University. See http://www.as.wvu.edu/New_Folder/faculty/polsci.html . Also see http://www.honors.wvu.edu/SGR2000/Course29.htm and http://www.honors.wvu.edu/200001/Course35.htm
Then accepted modes of regulation or registration as such were not the focus of Whisker's historical analysis, so there are not pithy quotes that could be cited by page to support my points on legal interpretation. Rather, there is evidence consisting of many examples of militia rolls (registration of men), inventories of weapons and other equipment, call-ups and commands to militia, militia operations, and related documentation and events, scattered throughout the treatises, which, taken together, show a pattern. One has to read all six volumes to get a general picture of what was going on in that era. Many of the details are in the works cited by Whisker, most of which are not available outside either his personal collection or that of West Virginia University. Even his treatises are not widely available, which is one of the reasons we have them online.
Clayton Cramer has done research along these lines as well, and may want to weigh in on this.
Militia history is fascinating, and those who are concerned about how to interpret the Second Amendment should read such historical material on it.
-- Jon
---------------------------------------------------------------- Our efforts depend on donations from people like you. Directions for donors are at http://www.constitution.org/whatucando.htm Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 512/374-9585 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------------------
