Constitutional conflict?

[sellersm]

Yes, I see your point: it's conceivable that the Pentagon edict could be used by the SC, in the future, to prove that the militia rulings are now invalid because "male" (as used in their rulings) does not equate to "female" (which is now the current, inclusive militia definition). I think in order for this to occur, there would have to be a clear ruling on the definition of "militia" in which they tie it directly to "combat personnel", because, as has been mentioned, there are already females serving in the military. However, they are not currently in active combat, front-line-type roles.

In other words, anything they can do to throw out the SC support of the 2A, they will indeed do.

[asmo]

I think in order for this to occur, there would have to be a clear ruling on the definition of "militia" in which they tie it directly to "combat personnel", because, as has been mentioned, there are already females serving in the military.

Do you people even read? The Militia (the one in the Constitution -- e.g. the un-organized militia) has NOTHING to do with the military (e.g. the standing army or the organized militia) in any way shape or form.