Nor do I see any power consistent with the Second Amendment which would have permitted the government to deny General, later President, Washington, of any of the arms that he might ever have owned, despite his having attained an age greater than might have been defined for the Militia.
TO DISARM?
Where do you come up with these? How can you possibly conclude that if a right is not protected it means the activity is illegal?
Yup, that is the key thing about RP’s whole “they’re not ‘the people’” thing: nobody was _disarmed_. At best, he harps on proof that one group is protected, but can’t prove that a superset of that group wasn’t protected, and especially can’t show that anyone in the larger group but not the subset was ever legitimately disarmed. War vets obviously had the right when in combat, but nobody thought they lost that right when incapacitated, aged, or even trangendered. As one respondent amici brief details, such disarmament only started as a matter of outright hardcore racism, and was less a matter of being Constitutional as of corrupt judges sharing in such evils. Even Mr. Miller’s case was remanded for more fact-finding about the item, with no consideration given to a convicted criminal (felon even?) obviously acting outside the militia. Insofar as Martha Washington not being recognized as having RKBA, cuturally none expected her to be in combat nor have any other reason to actively demand it (I’m sure she was ready to deal with intruders nonetheless). There was no limitation of “the people”, for military service was broadly expected, and RKBA for other purposes was simply a given for individuals & applications outside that focus. The 2ndA protects “keeping”, which plainly includes non-active-service (lest what equpment to use when active service is suddenly needed?), and it’s just stupid to think that the Brown Bess or M4 by the fireplace, protected for national defense, could not be used by the lady of the home (or other capable inhabitant not expected to serve in national combat) to defend self, dependents, or property. Insofar as any denial of 2ndA RKBA protections were leglislated/adjudicated, the motivation outside any strict-scrutiny limits was mostly oppression - exactly what the right was enumerated for in the first place.
Yes, the other good point: government is not empowered to disarm anyone of anything. Recognizing that governments tend to want to do so, and will twist any granted powers to achieve it (now we have 922(*), with more on the horizon), the Founding Fathers made it clear “not only did we not give any government such a power, we now hereby explicitly forbid any attempt to act that way anyway”.