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?
When it comes to the lower federal courts interpretation of the second amendment, that's pretty close. More like, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the power of the state governments to form their militias as they see fit and the right of the people to individually bear arms as part of that militia shall not be infringed".
You're hung up on the word "collectively". According to the courts, it means that "the people" referred to in the second amendment, though they may keep and bear arms individually, do so as part of a well regulated state militia. If you don't like word "collectively" then use your own. Whatever word you pick, that is what is protected by the second amendment, again, according to the courts' interpretation.
It's really up to the state -- if your state wishes to protect your right to have these militia weapons at home with you at all times, ANY weapon, then it's up to the state. If they wish to store these militia weapons in an armory, then so be it. If the states wishes to protect your right to keep and bear arms irregardless of a militia, that's up to the people of that state.
The Founding Fathers created a federated republic. They identified themselves by their state. They looked to their own state to protect their individual rights, and the thought of every state operating under exactly the same set of rules was contrary to the nation they were attempting to form.
The Bill of Rights, as written, only applied to the federal government. Each state had their own state constitution.
"a list of cases that mention the second amendment's preamble"
Yep. That's where the reference to a "well regulated militia" is located. Not strange at all for the courts to bring it up if they're leaning to the collective rights model.
But you, on the other hand, are ignoring it completely. You're acting as though its not there. With or without that preamble, you're saying the second amendment means exactly the same thing. Correct?
Then why is it there? No other enumerated right in the Bill of Rights has a preamble. They could. I can bang out preambles for every single one of those rights in a flash -- and so could you.
The Founding Fathers chose to write the amendments the way they did for a reason. For you to flat-out ignore those words because they're inconvenient to your personal interpretation of the second amendment is simply wrong.
"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?
Old Dirty Bastiat
Well said Bastiat..
- But as you've seen, your collectivist 'master of agitprop' opponent completely ignores your comments, -- in order to claim it is ~you~ who are hung up on the word "collectively", - then just a few comments later makes another case that 'the courts are leaning to the collective rights model'. Bizarre behavior.
The claim that 'with or without that preamble, the second amendment means exactly the same thing' is equally bizarre.
The Founders chose to write the amendments the way they did for a reason.
"-- A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," --- is there to to make clear that [un] free States cannot infringe on the right of the people to own & carry arms.
For anyone to flat-out ignore those words because they're inconvenient to a personal interpretation of the second amendment is simply wrong.