[andyfox]

We discussed this in March. One of the things I pointed out was that if the case made it to SCOTUS, we would have a chance to see if Scalia's originalism was truly originalism or intellectual hooey. From that thread:

Madison's initial formulation of the right to bear arms read:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free coutnry; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The House of Representatives revised Madison's original formulation, placing the affirmation of a well-regulated militia before the right to keep and bear arms. The introductory clauses of statues were commonly understood by eighteenth-century lawyers to hold the key to the meaning of a law. Framing the right to bear arms as a corollary of a preamble focusing on the need for a well-regulated militia clearly signaled that the purpose of the amendment was to protect the militia. The House also added a clause describing the militia as "composed of the body of the people" and changed a semicolon to a comma, an editorial decision that linked the clauses containing the miltia and the right of the people more closely.

In the debate in the House over how to treat religious pacifists, reference to the miltia was paramount. Elbridge Gerry said that "whenever government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia." The British had "used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward." Gerry, one of the few Anti-Federalists to be elected to the House, did not mention any threat to the rights of individuals to use guns outside militia service.

So if Scalia really wants our laws to reflect the reality of what they meant when they were passed, he will not vote to uphold the right of an individual to own guns based on the 2nd amendment.