Point Click, Fire: An Undercover Investigation of Illegal Online Gun Sales

[SteveW]

381. You need to check up on what "well-regulated" meant...

It means that a militia member must report with his OWN firearm, suitable for military service, and with the knowledge of how to use it, and be subject to some minimal training.

It should be instructive that the various militia laws require an individual to PROVIDE HIS OWN SUITABLE FIREARM. That kind of assumes that for some reason the individual is armed with a military-grade weapon to begin with.

There is no "conference" of a right in the Second; it is a recognition.

As for "collective or civic rights," this is in the purview of "state's rights" and other theoretical schemes which stretch the Constitution's abundantly-clear wording that the federal government recognizes (not confers) individual rights. Perhaps you confuse the notion of "the people" in the Second as comparable to some kind of "collective" right. Not so. Read the Fourth in which "the people" is referenced, and within the same sentence describes the things and "...the persons or things to be seized." Therefore, "the people" is not a "collective" right.

In any case, even the so-called "collectivist" or "states' rights" view acknowledges what the federal role is:

&quot 2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3"

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

Even here, the fed's role is barred. And states and localities must contend with the incorporation clause of the 14th Amendment, (1868) which denies a state or other entity from restricting the "privileges and immunities" of citizens of the United States.

But since Heller, there is little to argue about here. Not much left of the "communal rights" theory but the squeal.