In his scholarly decision, Gerstein adopts the view that the Second Amendment was enacted to protect of state militias from the federal government and not to declare the individual’s right to possess arms. With the disappearance of state militias, courts have generally held, the purpose of the Second Amendment is moot. Parker is "founded on a revisionist view of the Constitutional Convention, which view is far from generally accepted," said Gerstein.
More likely, Gernstein is just another in a long train of black-robed subversives bent on undermining the Natural Rights of his victims.
What is "generally accepted" today is very different than what was "generally accepted" by the Framers. Thanks in no small part to damage done over the years by despicable revisionists like Judge Gernstein.
One other thing this case illustrates is the folly of avoiding Second Amendment challenges by our "gun rights leaders." Anybody can claim a 2A defense. Is that the case we want moving forward, or would it best serve our interests to have one carefully crafted with all the resources and scholarship that can be mustered to increase the likelihood of a successful outcome?
[Via 1894C, via Alphecca]