[Jason_b]

Up until recently I'd totally agree with you. I'll risk reminding you of what you already know and that is that the District of Columbia is not a State of the Union. The legal rights of people in DC are different from those in Virginia, a "free state," as mentioned in the 2nd. Same as the States, DC has had militias. But the right to keep and bear arms is preserved only to State Citizens. To the States, the right to organize militias and regulate them.

There are two classes of citizen. One rightfully called citizen and the other also called citizen but should be called subject. 40 Cal 311, People v. De La Guerra will confirm this. It was when I read a citiation from this case that my view changed.

Two classes of citizenship link

[William Tell]

Jason_b said: The legal rights of people in DC are different from those in Virginia, a "free state," as mentioned in the 2nd. Same as the States, DC has had militias.

I disagree that the term "the security of a free state" refers only to the states of the union. Our nation has a "Secretary of State" who represents the interests of our nation when it must speak with one voice.

As an example, the United States of Mexico lacks a protected "right of the people to keep and bear arms", it lacks a "well-regulated Militia", and it suffers from vice and corruption which renders it insecure, as indicated by the violence just south of the border. The Second Amendment militia clause is a general statement of the need for a militia, not a reference to specific militias.