Still even yet more DC v Heller

There is a phrase that seems to be missing throughout all this punditry on DC v Heller, with the exception of my posts: stare decisis. Actually, the American Bar Association's Brief deals specifically with this topic.

QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the following provisions—D.C. Code §§ 7-
2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02—violate the
Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not
affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish
to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in
their homes?

There is an objection in court "Asked and answered", which this question is.

It has been taken as a ruling that the Miller court established that there needs to be a relationship between the activity and to ensure the efficacy of the Militia institution set up under Article I, Section 8. This has been the interpretation for the past 70 years. Prior to Miller, the Second Amendment has not been seen as a barrier to gun control.

In fact, any detailed reading of the primary source material shows that the Second Amendment is a guarantee that the Militia forces would not be disarmed. In fact, the Second Amendment is a guarantee against standing armies, not personal ownership of firearms. But, for some reason, the peace movement hasn't capitalised on the debates the way the guns for criminals crowd has.

Anyway, with the cost of "gun violence" in terms of public health and law enforcement, there is no reason to find an individual right. Even more impotantly to place concept of self-defence within the purview of the Second Amendment when it has not been a part of that Amendment's purpose or jurisprudence.

One need not go too far to find merit in DC's appeal and overturn the Parker decision.

The legal rules require such a decision.