Replies

In a word, Cruikshank. If you read the case law, specifically the case I cited, you'll find that USSC has ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states.

Now, you may disagree with this position, but it is a valid position with much legal precedent upon its side.

I, personally, support this ruling since I believe the US Constitution is a pact between the states and the federal government that limits the federal government and not the states. Just imagine how much mischief we would have avoid had the courts sided with this position in all aspects. The federal government would have been severly limited in meddling with matters within the states.

Ahhh yes, the good old Cruikshank decision, advocating an 1875 'states rights' version of the US constitution, as being inferior to the states constitutions, despite the clear words of Article VI:
"This Constitution ----- shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

One of the latest decisions on the 2nd, -- Emerson --, had this comment on states 'rights': ---------------------------

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The states rights model requires the word "people" to be read as though it were "States" or "States respectively." This would also require a corresponding change in the balance of the text to something like "to provide for the militia to keep and bear arms." That is not only far removed from the actual wording of the Second Amendment, but also would be in substantial tension with Art. 1, § 8, Cl. 16 (Congress has the power "To provide for . arming . the militia. . .").

For the sophisticated collective rights model to be viable, the word "people" must be read as the words "members of a select militia". The individual rights model, of course, does not require that any special or unique meaning be attributed to the word "people."
It gives the same meaning to the words "the people" as used in the Second Amendment phrase "the right of the people" as when used in the exact same phrase in the contemporaneously submitted and ratified First and Fourth Amendments.

There is no evidence in the text of the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that the words "the people" have a different connotation within the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere in the Constitution. In fact, the text of the Constitution, as a whole, strongly suggests that the words "the people" have precisely the same meaning within the Second Amendment as without. And, as used throughout the Constitution, "the people" have "rights" and "powers," but federal and state governments only have "powers" or "authority", never "rights."