Except that the Supremes ruled, in US v Miller (see link above) that those persons reporting for the militia should have a weapon "of the type in general usage." Since the US military "type" of shotgun is a pump shotgun, it would follow that a pump shotgun would be covered under the Second Amendment.
Every adult male between 17 and 45 IS a member of the militia, so.....
First, the Militia then (not organized), and the Militia now (organized).
I suppose, one could argue then, there is now organized Militia, the Second Amendment is outdated. Do we do away with the entirety of the the Second Amendment? Or, are the two clauses within the Second Amendment, mutually exclusive?--Is one necessary to the other?
Either, Militia is not a reference to the Corp--which is now organized--or the Militia is reference to every Tom, Dick, and Harry, sitting at home--currently--, on their couch, stuffing potato chips into their face, while watching reruns of Dukes Of Hazzard.
"Every adult male..." then, speaks nothing to every adult male, now, and their Constitutional duty to join the organized Corps.
Issue
- What rights are protected by the Second Amendment?
Holding and Rule (Scalia)
- The Second Amendment protects 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. http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html
Second Amendment banning certain types, and configurations of firearms, as I stated, are not infringements.
The first clause of the Second Amendment is not necessarily connected to the second clause.
Please, people, I beg you: Read, read, read.