Replies

The Constitution is determined by what was meant at the time it was written.

It is determined by the meaning given to it by the voters or people who adopted it. It is the meaning that would have been given by a reasonable person during the framing era.

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 9, 188-189 (1824), Marshall, CJ

As men whose intentions require no concealment generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said. If, from the imperfection of human language, there should be serious doubts respecting the extent of any given power, it is a well settled rule that the objects for which it was given, especially when those objects are expressed in the instrument itself, should have great influence in the construction. We know of no reason for excluding this rule from the present case. The grant does not convey power which might be beneficial to the grantor if retained by himself, or which can enure solely to the benefit of the grantee, but is an investment of power for the general advantage, in the hands of agents selected for that purpose, which power can never be exercised by the people themselves, but must be placed in the hands of agents or lie dormant. We know of no rule for construing the extent of such powers other than is given by the language of the instrument which confers them, taken in connexion with the purposes for which they were conferred.

United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 731 (1931)

The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet. 410; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S.139; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662; Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655; Story on the Constitution (5th ed.) § 451; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (2nd ed.), pp. 61; 70.

Heller at 554 U.S. 576-577:

“[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.

- - - - - - - - - -

At the time it was written, there were no laws requiring a permit for open or concealed carry. That is fact.

That there were allegedly no laws prohibiting concealed or open carry at the time the Constitution was written is absoutely meaningless. At the time the Constitution was written there was no law requiring lots of things. The absence of a law requiring a permit to do something did not transform doing any such thing into a constitutional right. That is an absurdity.

The content of the Constitution is determined by the words that it contains, not by the absence of state laws requiring permits to do things.

It was clear, from the discourse at the time, the Second Amendment applied to individual citizens, and was commonly considered a right of the individual.
The Second Amendment was put in place to protect that right.

What discourse? The Framers and the people knew what the Right to Bear Arms was, as held by the English Common Law under which the colonies had existed since before they were born. There was no debate on the meaning of RKBA. Everybody knew what it meant.

The Common Law, as I quoted to you, made it clear that it was an individual right,

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England
Book the First - Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals (1765)
5. THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

- - - - - - - - - -

The Second Amendment was put in place to protect that right.

Heller at 554 U.S 599,

The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal government would destroy the citizens' militia by taking away their arms was the reason that the right—unlike some other English rights— was codified in a written Constitution.

In McDonald, at 561 U.S. 787, Justice Alito stated,

In Heller, we rejected the suggestion that the right was valued only as a means of preserving the militias. 554 U.S., at 598-599. On the contrary, we stressed that the right was also valued because the possession of firearms was thought to be essential for self-defense.

- - - - - - - - - -

The Fourteenth Amendment was put in place to prevent the States from infringing on Second Amendment rights, among others.

The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to make citizens of the freedmen, to prohibit states from making or enforcing laws abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, and to provide Congress with the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of the Amendment. It was not self-enforcing. No part of the Bill of Rights became enforceable against the states until the Supreme Court incorporated it against the States. Some parts of the Bill of Rights have never been so incorporated and are not enforced against the states, for example, the Fifth Amendment requirement for a Grand Jury does not apply to the states. The Privileges or Immunities Clause pertains to United States citizenship only, not to said privileges or immunties acquired by virtue of State citizenship. The Equal Protection Clause required states to give similarly situated persons or classes similar treatment. The Due Process clause forbids any state to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The Bill of Rights is incorporated against the states under the Due Process Clause.

In McDonald, Justice Alito concluded his opinion at 561 U.S. 791,

We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.

Blackstone correctly noted English law allowed for regulation. The Second Amendment is stricter, by design, than English law.

Please quote the hidden codicil in the Second Amendment which makes the English Common Law Right to Keep and Bear Arms more or less strict. The States adopted the English Common Law before they adopted the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution. The English Common Law was adopted, with no provision of strictness, by the original thirteen states, Vermont, the District of Columbia, and the Northwest Territories. The right did not change, it was adopted without change. The Second Amendment says not a mumbling word about what the RKBA consists of.

You are making crap up again.