2nd Amendment SCOTUS Pasta

>Presser v Illinois, 1886, says you can ban the formation of militias
Essentially this is the first step in guaranteeing the 2nd amendment as an individual right. You can ban military parades and marching in formation because the right guaranteed by the 2nd isn't "to form a well regulated militia" it's "to keep and bear arms."
Really, they said you can ban such things because the 2nd only applies to congress, as many of the amendments did, then. The 2nd's inability to be infringed by states isn't explict for another 130 years. The point is that the Supreme Court, since at least 1886, has held that the right to keep and bear arms is independent of any militia formation.
>Robertson v Baldwin, 1897, says you can ban concealed carry of firearms
Open carry at the time was normal, and concealed carry was for crooks. We see a similar argument in the next case. AFAIK to this day states must either allow one or the other.
Also okay according to the judges, in this ruling? Blasphemy laws.
>US v Miller, 1939, contends weapons bans are fine if the weapon has no obvious military use
This plays on Robertrson V Baldwin, where you can ban things that are only for criminal use. This is a commonly used, ham fistedly interpreted case for anti-gunners, and the first case of "well regulated militia" being used as cause to limit the 2nd, not merely explanation.
But this seems like it would pre-empt things like an AWB, since they're by their nature attempting to ban "weapons of war." Those are most definitley useful for well regulated militias.
It also notes particularly that the militia commonly refered to all white men able to defend the country, essentially. This is important, because we see in our country all white men become all men, become all people.
>Lewis v US, 1980, agrees with Miller
>US vs Verdugo, 1990, says when the constitution says "people" it means all US citizens.
The Heller decision becomes obvious from here. But we will continue.
>DC vs Heller, to quote, holds the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
So now we have a ruling that seems to say you can't ban weapons that are used for military purposes (Miller), nor can you ban weapons used for traditionally lawful purposes such as civilian home defense (Heller). On it's face, this renders AWBs unconstitutional (the most useful weapons for a militia), and most handgun bans (the premier home defense weapon) unconstitutional.
But there's apparent conflict here, since the text of Heller also says it's fine to ban dangerous/unusual weapons. We resolve this logically by concluding that military weapons, while dangerous, aren't unusual (and how can they be, considering the numbers they're found in). Expect this to be the out liberal supreme court justices will use to uphold various AWBs.
>McDonald vs Chicago, 2010, finds the 2nd applies to states (obviously)
Like every other right. This one is self explanatory.
>Caetano v Massachusets, 2016, finds the 2nd applies to all arms that are bearable.
It's the text of the amendment, you'd think this one doesn't have to be argued. It was about a stun gun, and likely is what will be used to strike down AWBs by judges in the future.
The ruling explictly includes under 2nd amendment protections arms that weren't around/in common use when the 2nd amendment was written.
You'll notice there are not really any carry cases here, except that concealed carry is bannable, and so is blasphemy. These are the cases we need most, because even in the most anti-gun states, such as NJ, it's really fairly easy to keep arms.
One can get most rifles, handguns, and shotguns no problem in NJ. But NJ, like NY, Hawaii, and others essentially entirely bans bearing arms. They're what amounts to no-issue for handguns, open carry only for long arms. And see how the state police in those places like you toting around your AR. So these are the cases the GOA and others most want to push to the SCOTUS.
tl;dr
>courts have never thought the right to bear arms only applied to militias (in fact the exact opposite, even individual state courts, e.g. Aymette vs State. Tennessee, 1840)
>the right to bear arms has been an explicitly individual right for literally over 100 years
>AWBs are not now nor would they have ever been considered constitutional
>We mostly need carry cases in the SCOTUS
Thanks for reading my effort post.