Why the 2nd Amendment may no longer be revelent to the Federal Government

[BjornF16]

:confused: Huh? You say I'm incorrect, then cite Presser, which says the same as I did -- that the people are a reserve militia.

Yes, because you previously stated: "The 2nd Amendment addresses only "well regulated" (official and organized) militias." - which is totally incorrect. I cited Presser because SCOTUS said in Presser that everyone (i.e. "the people") was the reserve militia and the 2A applied to all of us. (I'm inferring you are saying that since it applies only to "well regulated (official and organized) militias", then it doesn't apply to the average Joe).

My point was again validated by SCOTUS decision in US v Miller (1939), which applied the 2A "militia" standard to a private citizen who was found with a SBS that was not "stamped". In this case, the court searched for use of a SBS in the "militia" to see if it was in common use before saying whether or not it could be regulated under NFA of 1934.

Not quite. It (well regulated) actually meant organized and trained for military operations.

Not completely accurate. It did not mean "organized and trained for military operations" in the context we would organize and train today. How could it? It consisted of yeomanry. When combined with the ending of the 2A (the right to keep and bear arms) it can be inferred to mean "practiced and skilled in firearms"

"Security" refers to maintaining the territorial integrity of the state and well being of its citizens, not to marksmanship training or access to bullets.

I respectfully disagree. Security here means the "maintenance of a free country", not the territorial integrity of the state (but I will agree with the "well being of its citizens, since that is synonymous with being "free"). If, however, you mean territorial integrity in the sense of repelling an invasion, then I don't necessarily disagree since you can't very well maintain your freedom if you've been invaded.

The Presser court's opinion was that the states were prohibited from disarming "all citizens capable of bearing arms" because it conflicted with the federal government's right to a reserve military force and the militia powers granted to Congress by the Constitution.

My point (supported by Supreme Court, and other courts) is "the people" + firearms + ammunition = the 2A militia. Why do I make a point about ammunition? Because it was the Brit's attempt at confiscating powder that precipitated the "shot heard 'round the world". Do you really think that did not play into the 2A?

A "reserve militia" is useless without firearms+ammo and the skill to employ them.

Try reading in the context of: "A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State (or Country) therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."