Second Amendment Challenge in D.C.- DC solicitor General puts both feet firmly in mouth.

The original is here.

Go read the whole thing, I'll wait.

So basically, a suit in DC dealing with the DC gun ban is now in the DC Disctrict Court. The DC solicitor General's arguement against this unconstitutional ban is simply that the Second Amendment applies only to the militias.

Well then, sir, I submit this for your perusal. Surely, as the DC solicitor General, you are familiar with United States Code, section 311:

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So, EVEN IF THE SECOND AMENDMENT ONLY APPLIES TO MILITIAS, he has just firmly inserted his foot in his mouth because the militias, defined in a federal law which was originally enacted by the same founding fathers that wrote the Second Amendment and then amended by the Act that created the National Guard, every able-bodied male ages 17 to 45 in the Disctrict of Columbia is already a member of the militia, and thus, the gun ban is still unconstitutional.

Update- 10Mar07:

The three-judge review by the District Court found that the DC Gun Ban is uncinstitutional, and that the second amendment is indeed an individual right. I'll just leave full coverage of this one to The Anarchangel.