[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...there is a valid constitutional argument (based on the constitution's text) that asserts the 2nd Amendment only protects the states' right to have militias, and does not apply to individuals. It's certainly an argument with merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why wouldn't it have been written "the right of the states to keep and bear arms"...instead of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"? I think the argument to which you are referring indeed claims that the right is contingent upon militias, but does not further claim that those militias must be under the control of the state government. As above, if they wanted it to refer to the right of "states", they would have used that word instead of using the word "people".

edited:

It seems to me that if the text is referencing the right to bear arms solely for the purposes of a militia, it is still referring to the right of the people to keep and bear arms for such purpose: not the right of states to so keep and bear.


[/ QUOTE ]

John - It's honestly not an argument I am versed with, it was mentioned in passing in my Con Law class, where the 2nd Amendment got very little face time. I was just pointing out that it was out there.

My reading of the amendment is that people should be able to bear arms so that they can assemble into a well regulated militia should the need arise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and it was discussed at length in another thread or two. I just thought worth pointing out something which I don't remember being pointed out in those threads, and which your post made me think of: that such a reading of the "right to keep and bear" clause (with heavy emphasis on militia purpose) would apply to the People rather than the several States, since the word "People" is used instead of the word "States".

Therefore, in my view, even if that argument is conclusive (which I don't think it fully is), and if the right to keep and bear is solely for purposes of a militia, it is still the People (not the States) that are guaranteed the right to keep and bear for that purpose. So in effect, even that strongly militia-based interpretation means that the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, since the right of the People to keep and bear arms (for purposes of a militia) shall not be infringed.

Hopefully Andy Fox will take note of this post. Maybe it is worthy of another thread to discuss precisely this perspective on the "militia purpose" argument.