I looked up the relevant bit of the D. C. code. Robert Woolley wrote: > 6 THE COURT: SUPPOSE THE PLAINTIFFS WERE MEMBERS OF > 7 THIS STATE-SANCTIONED MILITIA. WOULD THEY BE ENTITLED TO > 8 POSSESS HANDGUNS? > > 9 MS. MULLEN: IF THEY WERE PART OF A MILITIA. [...] >18 THE COURT: IS THAT WHAT THE D. C. CODE SAYS? >19 MS. MULLEN: I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY HOW IT'S >20 DEFINED. I KNOW PLAINTIFF WAS MENTIONING THE CODE.
[...] > If the D.C. Code's definition of who is in the militia encompasses >all or some of the plaintiffs, then the defendants have, with this >concession, handed not only the standing issue, but the entirety of >the merits, to the plaintiffs. > > Or am I reading too much into this point? I don't know the answer to that question, but to assist those who are qualified to speculate on it, here's a link to the relevant part of the D.C. Code: http://dccode.westgroup.com/find/text.wl?RecreatePath=/find/default.wl&RLT=CLID%5FFQRLT1249311&Docname=DCCODES49%2D401&FindType=W&Db=DC%2DTOC%2DWEB%3BSTADCTOC&StatEdCode=0&RS=WLW2.07&VR=1.0&n=1 (or, for convenience, try this one: http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1FF51B66 ) It's the usual sort of thing: >Every able-bodied male citizen resident within the District of >Columbia, of the age of 18 years and under the age of 45 years, >excepting persons exempted by - 49-402, and idiots, lunatics, common >drunkards, vagabonds, paupers, and persons convicted of any infamous >crime, shall be enrolled in the militia. Persons so convicted after >enrollment shall forthwith be disenrolled; and in all cases of doubt >respecting the age of a person enrolled, the burden of proof shall be >upon him. --Jimbo
