The right to arms isn't granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd, the right to possess and use arms for legal purposes is a retained right -- no aspect of the right was ever conferred to the federal government that would allow the feds to dictate to the citizen what uses are allowed or qualify the protection of the right (e.g., upon one's attachment to organized militia).
You are arguing a position that has been denounced and rejected by SCOTUS for going on 140 years, not 8 years.
Back in 1876 SCOTUS recognized the right to bear arms for a lawful purposes -- that of armed self-defense in public by two former slaves, then citizens from the KKK / Night Riders, in 1873 Louisiana, a state who had their militia formally disbanded by Congress.
SCOTUS said then that such an exercise of the right to arms was, "not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." SCOTUS re-affirmed that in 1886 and again in 2008;
"it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “this is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . ."
That means that 'promulgating the right on a state's need for a militia' is illegitimate.
The right itself, its recognition and protection can not be said to be dependent upon words in the Constitution (e.g., the 2nd's "well regulated"
nor upon something that is itself, completely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence . . . such as the organized militia and a citizen's enrollment in it.
.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read