The second amendment did not guarantee the militia, the national guard or the states or the federal government's rights.
It clearly says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Shanda had it right. That phrase is not dependent on the prior one.
You are correct.
However, given that the "unorganized militia" has been defined in terms of a subset of the people, apart from any state militia, then even the militia-constrained, though incorrect, reading of the Second Amendment, would bar federal infringements of the right to keep and bear arms of that subset of the people. If even one non-government person is entitled to bear arms, that is a victory relative to the arguments of some on this forum.
The example I like is the following:
A well-read electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and read books shall not be infringed.
Just as "electorate" means the people acting in their role as electors of our representatives, the "militia" in the Second Amendment is simply the people acting in their role as protectors of the public security. Federal definitions of the "unorganized militia" prove this.
In both cases, the majority of people are entitled and expected to carry out the role in question, but the right being protected is a right of all of the people.
We should all be thankful that US vs Miller was only in error with regard to whether the type of arms can be constrained by some false notion of "suitability". Miller himself was not required to be a member of a militia to be protected.
The days of the Supreme Court failing to grant cert are fast coming to an end. The situation in Kalifornia is such that all arms could be outlawed and confiscated under the Ninth Circuit's rulings. Crunch time is coming.
Shanda had it right. That phrase is not dependent on the prior one.
Absolutely correct.
Regrettably, the Brady bunch, the Million Moms, and the girly-men who hide under their skirts disagree:
"The Brady Center, through its Legal Action Project, filed a "friend of the court" brief in the Emerson case arguing against the "individual rights" view."