that Defendants violated a clearly established Constitutional right, Miller analogizes the role a Sheriffs Deputy plays as a law enforcement officer to that of a member of a state militia in times of crisis. Miller points to N.J.S.A. § 38A:l-l(a), (g) & (h) defining militia as “all the military ... land, aú and sea forces established by State or Federal laws, as applicable.” In relation to this statutorily constructed authority conferred upon the Governor to call on members of the state militia, i.e., the National Guard or Army, in times of crisis, Miller urges his role in the post>-9/ll world to be analogous to that of a militiaman. Miller’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is unpersuasive. See generally, United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939) (<HOLDING>) While local law enforcement officers
holding there was no abuse of discretion where although the district court did not discuss the relationship that the damages awarded  had to the damages  sought the district courts opinion made clear that it was well aware of this relationship holding that the second amendment fully applies to state and local regulation through the fourteenth amendment holding second amendment right is incorporated against the states through fourteenth amendment holding that the defendant could not avail himself of second amendment protection because his weapon possession bore no reasonable relationship to the preservation of a well regulated militia holding that the designation of a defendant as sexually oriented offender for kidnapping his child where there was no evidence of sexual motivation bore no rational relationship to purpose of the statute