Ask and ye shall receive.
A couple of points. First, let's be adults here and discuss (if you wish) the cases themselves. If you wish to criticize the source, you'll do so in a vacuum because I'm done -- it's the result of a Google search.
Second, I disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court cases cited. The court in US v Miller made many references to a militia and implied that the weapon was protected if it was suitable for a militia. But they never did rule that the second amendment protected a collective right. Or an individual right, for that matter.
The court in Lewis v US makes some passing reference to the second amendment in a footnote, hardly a ringing endorsement of a collective right.
"The Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia'."
There may even be some other lower federal court decisions that are questionable, but the list was provided per your request. If you wish to challenge it, be my guest. I'm more than happy to discuss the cases.
In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), Justice Taney outlined the consequences of a person of the negro race being declared a "Citizen of a state" -- that they would receive the same protection of rights that every other citizen of that state received, including the right "to keep and carry arms wherever they went".
Yes, an individual right, but a right protected by the state, not the second amendment.
I'm surprised you brought up United States v. Cruikshank to support your individual rights contention. In it, the court said NOT to look to the second amendment for protection against a state law. That people should look for their "protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes" at the state level. An individual RKBA is protected by the state.
In Duncan v. Louisiana (1968), the court may indeed have "incorporated" the sixth amendment. But what that has to do with the individual rights model of the second amendment is beyond me.
First of all, as of this date, the second amendment is not "incorporated. Second, even if it WAS incorporated I don't know what that would mean, even if incorporation was possible.
If, as a number of courts have said, the second amendment protects a state militia from federal infringement (a collective right), then how do you incorporate that -- a state may not infringe on a state militia? See what I mean?
Now, certainly, if the second amendment protected an individual right, then incorporating it would mean that the state must protect an individual right also. But only the 5th Circuit in Emerson has said that the second amendment protects an individual right. You think the U.S. Supreme Court will agree with them and ignore all the other cases I cited?
I'm not willing, at this time, to take that "all or nothing" chance, thank you.
"U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990) was not an RKBA case. That was a "citizens" vs "the people" language argument concerning the fourth amendment. You can't apply the definition of the term "the people" in that case to the second amendment.
Well, you could if the second amendment said, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Then I would wholeheartedly agree with you that it protects an individual right. No question. Game over.
Of course, that's not what the second amendment says, is it?
First, what I've received is a list of cases that mention the second amendment's preamble- not support for your baseless assertion that "every court except the 5th Circuit" follows the Soviet-style collective right model. The preamble gives context and rationale for the right enumerated. It does not irrationally and unexplainably transform the meaning of "the people" into something different than what "the people" means everywhere else in the constitution. It certainly does not change the meaning of "the people" to "state government".
Second, let me explain the difference between collective rights and individual rights. In a country that respects your individual right to free speech, the government will not punish you for posting your political views on Free Republic. In a country that recognizes a collective right to free speech, the government will toss you into a concentration camp for speaking out of turn and exercise "the people's" (government's) collective right to broadcast the government's views.
All of the rights enumerated in the bill of rights, including the second amendment, are individual rights. This is obvious when you consider that collective rights did not exist at the time the bill of rights was ratified. The concept of collective rights is a Marxist construct, and the bill of rights predates Marxism. The individual rights enumerated in the bill of rights are restrictions on government action. The second amendment's preamble describes the purpose of the right that it enumerates. That's why the Supreme Court concerned itself with the military suitability of the sawed off shotgun rather than whether Miller had a permission slip from the governor.
The point of including the Reconstruction era cases was to show examples of Supreme Court cases where the right to keep and bear arms is regarded as an individual right. The fact that the right was not incorporated does not make it a collective right. The rest of the enumerated rights from the bill of rights were not incorporated at that time either, yet they are always individual rights, both before and after incorporation.
"The people" from Verdugo-Urquidez is the same "the people" from the second amendment. That's the reason the court referred to the second amendment in that case, as an example of usage of the words "the people". It is referred to in the context individual rights, not collective rights.
The collective rights model is not jurisprudence. It is revisionist history and wishful thinking by a handful of Marxist federal judges who twist history and logic until "the people" = "the government" in order to suit their elitist agenda of disarming "the people".
Even supposing that the founding fathers had a time machine and learned what a collective right was, if they intended to draft a collective right to keep and bear arms since their language in the constitution was always precise and consistent they would word it differently. Perhaps something like this:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the power of the state governments to arm their militias shall not be infringed. "
Of course, that's not what the second amendment says, is it?