I don't see muggers, ex-husbands, or burglars in there anywhere.
What I do see is that "a free State" is what is being defended by the 2nd Amendment.
And we protect that freedom not from muggers, but against usurpation of freedom by governments. The whole Bill of Rights is about securing people's rights AGAINST government.
So, while I agree with the good Judge's outcome, I disagree with his logic. We aren't protecting ourselves from muggers. We're protecting ourselves from excessively self-aggrandizing judges (and legislators and executives)!
The only difference is the later group tend to have much more education, and can do you much more financial harm, than the former.
This preamble in no way limits the right to keep and bear arms to only defense of the state.
Some State constitutions have this same language. Others use language such as "in defense of themselves and the State" (Florida, Texas and others) which explicitely spells out collective and individual defense, but hunting isn't mentioned. (Are we to conclude that there is no right to hunt?) But leave it to gun grabbers (and others) to exploit silence. This is fallacious reasoning.
The last comma is not in the original writing. Be that as it may, the first clause does not limit the second clause:
[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”
[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”
[Schulman:] “(2) Is ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right ‘shall not be infringed’?”
[Copperud:] “(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”
[Schulman:] “(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ null and void?”
[Copperud:] “(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”
[Schulman:] “(4) Does the clause ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,’ grant a right to the government to place conditions on the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms,’ or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?”
[Copperud:] “(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.”
What I do see is that "a free State" is what is being defended by the 2nd Amendment.
And we protect that freedom not from muggers, but against usurpation of freedom by governments. The whole Bill of Rights is about securing people's rights AGAINST government.
So, while I agree with the good Judge's outcome, I disagree with his logic. We aren't protecting ourselves from muggers. We're protecting ourselves from excessively self-aggrandizing judges (and legislators and executives)!
respectfully disagree...muggers, rapists, et. al. all negatively impact your freedom
therefore protecting yourself from them is just as important as protecting yourself from tyranny