Still the Congress has the Constitutional authority to issue regulations to all military which sort of trumps the other two opinion documents. There are no other levels absent an amendment. Context is useful and needed. It is not law.

Article one Section Eight

"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

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;"

And many other duties.

Which is why Department of Defense Regulations trump the lower levels and why the federal government pays 95% on average of the National Guard budget. All approved or required by Congress.

Let's examine the rest of the story sticking just to those in the majority.

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. (It did not define dangerous and unusual other than of a type similar to those generally in use at the time the Constitution was written (single shot rifles and muskets and pistols)

It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment. (Left it subject to interpretation.)

The Court found that the D.C. ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment right because it prohibited an entire class of arms favored for the lawful purpose of self-defense in the home. It similarly found that the requirement that lawful firearms be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock made it impossible for citizens to effectively use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense, and therefore violated the Second Amendment right.

(restricted to in the home)

Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun
(and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.[180])


The Court said it was unnecessary to address the constitutionality of the D.C. licensing requirement.(Thus failed to answer the question but assumed the right and evaded 9th and 10 Amendment issues.)


The outcome of D.C. v. Heller leaves some issues unanswered, including whether the Second Amendment restricts state regulation of firearms, and the standard for evaluating the constitutionality of other laws and regulations that impact the Second Amendment right. These issues will be the subject of future litigation.

Tell me again about no infringement?

Then again there is the habit of ignoring the constitution by current and former Presidents and let us not forget the above majority opinions laid out no less than five plus areas 'not visited by the Supreme Court and restricted the infringement to the home in a sixth.)

The rest was left up to the States and the lower courts although I did find that some states can authorize but not operate private militias.

Bueno. I concede uncoupled from membership in State Militias and do not concede

a. infringements as the plaintiff rights? were clearly infringed to exclude anything outside the home and in other ways

and b. powers not granted though they were granted to the States but not the federal government however they neatly sidestepped they had no power to grant rights to the States - it's the other way around. I think they knew it but did not want to admit it.

then sent it back to the States and lower courts with a clear message to continue infringements in an unexhausted and presumably presumptive list of other areas. Doesn't really meet the test of any definition on no infringement.

As for you lefties (being neither right nor left myself) 9th and 10th Amendments live and not visited by the Supreme Court is not a permission to assume powers not granted. Doing so openly is a Nuremberg Defense and open admission of guilt combined with a plea for clemency or leniency in sentencing. Tell Carville you need a better line of BS.