Replies

>>>If 99 cases are decided as a collective right and one case is an individual right, how do you think the USSC would vote.<<<

Since anti-gun, "living constitution" liberals currently hold the majority of the seats on the Supreme Court, I would think they would rule the 2nd to be a collective right. However to do so they would have to ignore numerous contrary statements by our founding fathers, and one very important historical fact that occurred during the debates:

On September 9, 1789, during the Senate debate on the Bill of Rights, there was a proposed amendment to the 5th Article (the 2nd Amendment) which would have inserted the words 'for the common defence' next to the words 'bear arms'. This attempt by some senators to make the right to keep and bear arms a 'collective right' failed.

See: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:2:./temp/~ammem_QuYH::

Note that one of the earliest proposals (if not the earliest) on the RKBA, which occurred in the House on June 27, 1788, read as follows: "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Note also the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is the first clause, and distinct from the others.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:10:./temp/~ammem_QuYH::

"This attempt by some senators to make the right to keep and bear arms a 'collective right' failed."

I'm not so sure that was the reason given. It is the Militia wording which gives it a collective meaning. It could have been that inserting "for the common defence" would have merely been redundant and unnecessary.

"Note also the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is the first clause"

It was. Not any more.

All my post said was that, based on lower federal court decisions, it is unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court would rule it to be an individual right.