The people, of course. But their right to keep and bear arms is protected as part of a militia.
In the cases I cited, the 9th Circuit Court illustrated this by citing that the defendants in those cases "lacked standing" -- meaning the defendants, as individuals, couldn't seek the protection of the second amendment because the second amendment protected the ability of a state to form a citizen's militia. A state would have to bring a second amendment case against the federal government.
"both federal and state are cherry picking which laws on which arm has the power to enforce"
Excellent observation.
The Bill of Rights, as written, was a restriction only on the federal government. States were free to limit speech, search without a warrant, establish their own state religion, etc. And they did.
Starting around the early 1900's, activist U.S. Supreme Courts starting selectively applying the Bill of Rights to the states (a process known as "selective incorporation").
Today, all of the amendments are "incorporated" with the exception of the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, the grand jury indictment clause of the 5th Amendment, and the 7th Amendment.
And that spelled the end of federalism -- one set of rules now applies to everyone. Some statists on this forum who believe in centralized government think this is a good thing. Every state, for example, must allow free speech.
The downside to this is that five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court define "speech". If they say nude dancing is protected "speech", then every state must allow it.
Or, if they say abortion is a right to privacy (found in a penumbra of an emanation of numerous amendments to the U.S. Constitution), then every state must allow it.
Given that, are you looking forward to the day when the second amendment is incorporated and these yahoos get to define "arms"? Or "keep"? Or "bear"?
So everyone not in the militia can gotohell as far as gun ownership is concerned? Pardon my french.
meaning the defendants, as individuals, couldn't seek the protection of the second amendment because the second amendment protected the ability of a state to form a citizen's militia.
So they're parsing the meaning of the second to fit their agenda?
A state would have to bring a second amendment case against the federal government.
Will the state do that? I won't be holding my breath.
Thank you for all the information.
Given that, are you looking forward to the day when the second amendment is incorporated and these yahoos get to define "arms"? Or "keep"? Or "bear"?
NO!
Is our civilian police allowed to work together, train, or hold joint exercises with our military? Aren't they supposed to never mix like that? Does our Constitution allow it?
Do you wonder why some might find your fear irrational, given that the federal "assault weapons" ban has already done what you fear "incorporation" would do? You act as if the individual states were free to ignore the restrictions on ugly rifles. That is simply not so.