Reply #160: Isn't Bogus....

[DoNotRefill]

a major gun control advocate? Isn't that his main "bread and butter"?

"There is nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an intellectual conviction."--Frank Herbert

If it's all about the militia, then why didn't the Second Amendment SAY militia when talking about the right? If what you say is true, wouldn't the main clause read "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms" instead of the "right of the people"? After all, the Constitution makes clear distinctions elsewhere between the various kinds of militias (organized, unorganized, select, et cetera) and the people.

Look at the Militia Act of 1792. It clearly defines the different kinds of militias, and sets down the obligations of militia members.

Look at the Miller decision in 1939. Miller wasn't in any kind of militia. In fact, his prior criminal record precluded his membership in a militia. If the Second Amendment applied only to the militia, that single fact would have been dispositive in that case, and there would have been NO necessity to get into the military usefulness of the gun in question.

If the "right of the people" designates a State's right, then the vast majority of US Jurisprudence on other constitutional guarantees is wrong. You simply cannot have it both ways. Either "people" refers to an individual right, or it doesn't. If it does refer to an individual right, then the Second Amendment means what it says, it's a right of the people, and it shall not be infringed, even by the States. If it is a collective right and applies only to the States, then the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures applies only to the State, so individuals can be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, unless they're part of the State government. And States are not bound by other constitutional protections if they pass laws that violate them.

That's pure bunk, and no serious legal scholar would go with such an interpretation.