Amazing

Obviously

we all know what you are, and you are not a supporter of gun control. This group is not an appropriate place for you.

and here like in every other post on this site, your goal is to work against that.

Last edited Mon Mar 18, 2013, 01:52 AM - Edit history (1)

for some time: attempted to bait a poster in back n' forth into saying something that will get a post in their own OP hidden, thus locking them out of their own thread. Especially after you have had a post hidden yourself: I remember the thread where you managed to get a post of yours hidden, and then went on to alert on every single subsequent post of mine - I was getting forwarded "alert results" from other DU'ers whose alert messages - sent by you - simply beggared the imagination for the amount of mendacious duplicity that could be crammed into one sentence.

So, there's that.

But as regards the issue in this sub-thread, you are already trying both over in the Gungeon and here to spread the message that you are "really" for "gun control," even though your posting history at DU says otherwise.

Your pal "friendly" is trying the same tact: after YEARS of posting the most hateful, scurrilous NRA talking points against those of us who believe in sensible gun legislation, he's all of a sudden discovered he's "really" in favor of gun control after all!

"Because I'd like to see effective and Constitutional gun control that won't get reversed at the
next round of Congressional elections"

What it really is is that you don't want to be restricted from posting here, because you think DU is your oyster, and you have a "right" to spread the pro-NRA message wherever you want on this discussion board, even here in a safe haven pro-gun control group. That's how deeply your sense of entitlement - and that of your pals in the Gungeon - runs:

Here's the bottom line: I'm not a Host, so I'm not speaking from any position of authority whatsoever, but I have a feeling that if you abide by the SOP of the group, you will have no problems posting here. The problem is, both you & I well know you have ZERO intention of adhering to the SOP, just as none of your "RKBA enthusiast" friends have any intention of doing same. You are trying to find a wedge, a technicality ("I support many of the same gun control laws you do") to avoid being restricted from posting here. What ultimately happens I imagine will ultimately be up to how you comport yourself in this new group in complying with the SOP.

Your track record to date all over the rest of DU when it comes to these issues doesn't look promising in that regard, but the decision will ultimately be up to the Hosts.

but seems to me to be a good way to unintentionally alienate a whole lot of people/voters.

A quick review of case law regarding the second amendment:
Hickman, 9th Circuit. Held that the RKBA is a state's right and so individuals have no standing to bring a 2A defense.

Silveira, again 9th Circuit, attempting to patch earlier Hickman decision that had become untenable, held that the while RKBA is right of the people, it is a "Collective" right, and so individuals have no standing.

As the debate continued in the public square it became obvious that Silveira also could not withstand criticism: The accused in US v Miller in fact had standing. Moreover the notion of a collective right regarding RKBA came under fire from both right and left leaning sources. Saul Cornel and others argued for an individual rights interpretation, and in Heller SCOTUS found 9-0 on that point, overturning Silveira with regard to standing and on collective vs. individual right.

The dissents in Heller tried to fall back on the narrow individual rights interpretation advocated by Cornell and others (but which had been rejected out of hand in Silveira), and in doing so they claimed that the various state court RKBA cases ought not to be looked at as evidence of the scope of the RKBA in the second amendment, though SCOTUS in US v. Miller took the opposite approach. Both Heller dissents badly bungled the argument regarding the scope of the RKBA, and are a discredit to honest debate on the topic.

US v. Miller taught that the RKBA was intended to protect possession of arms useful in warfare (this is straight out of Aymette v. Tenn which was cited in the US v. Miller holding) and thus sawed off shotguns, saturday night specials, and other weapons useful primarily to the criminal do not under that interpretation fall under the definition of "arms" in 2A.

Now we have all ten Dems on the Senate judiciary committee claiming that possession of certain small arms is not protected by the second amendment because such are easier to handle and have additional military usefulness as compared to similar rifles. It is one thing to question the finer points of Heller which was decided 5-4; it is quite another to ignore US v. Miller, Aymette v. Tenn. and a long string of state court cases which held that arms useful for military purposes are those arms which fall under the protection of 2A. Aymette v. Tenn. states that the right to keep arms of the sort useful for military purposes is an unqualified right of the citizens, however in the interest of public safety the government may pass laws to regulate how such arms may be borne, but cannot ban the bearing of such arms altogether.

The difference between a Ruger mini 14 (allowed under Feinstein's AWB bill) and banned rifles comes down to pistol grips/forward hand grips. As these grips make it easier to handle, control, and aim the weapon, and are standard on military rifles, it is difficult to argue that such grips make the weapon more dangerous in a public safety sense and have less military usefulness than the allowed version.

In my opinion those truly seeking tighter gun control that does not violate constitutional protections should focus on how arms may be borne in public and how ownership is transferred. But to make silly distinctions which go beyond what is already the law (national firearms act) only drags the country backwards into arguments concerning the scope of the RKBA, and leads those who support the second amendment to question the motives of the advocates of such distinctions.

might cost the Democrats in votes. How many other developed countries have the gun death rate that we do? Let's restrict these guns and let the bat crap crazy gun lovers take it to court. And you know what, let's bring pressure on the courts and the justice department to stall the adjudication as long as possible. It might be that the SCOTUS would rule that law constitutional now, but I'd feel a lot safer with a RW retirement first.
Waiting to convince the NRA supporters who claim to be Democrats is no longer an option. Minimal laws that would be certain to pass muster with a right wing majority on the SCOTUS is not an option.

a real concern for balancing constitutionally protected rights and public safety, but instead an opportunity to curtail constitutional protections that you do not agree with?


Was lambasting Bush/Republicans for pushing for powers under the Patriot Act to in effect spy on citizens w/o probable cause or warrant just using a wedge issue and not a real concern for constitutional protections?

The message that came through loud and clear during the recent Senate Judiciary committee debates was pretty much what you stated. Feinstein made it abundantly clear she doesn't give a damn about the constitution, or whether the AWB will be effective, instead her bill is about getting her way.

How will this brazen disregard for constitutionally protected rights play in the full Senate or in the house? If one does not care, then one is not serious about getting something passed, instead it is all kabuki theater.

How will protection from the gun worshipers play in the Senate or House? What the he-- does this have to do with whether the law would be constitutional or not?
And how can a law that was constitutional from 1994-2004 be unconstitutional in 2013? Oh I know, because of pistol grips or because clips are not magazines or whatever the NRA's talking point of the week says.

Not only would the gun control laws you want get reversed, the rest of the Democratic program would
undoubtedly go along with it.

And if it comes down to just that, or nothing? What then?

because the NRA and right wing will no longer support them? If an asteroid hits tomorrow, what then?
Why have two parties?

And the gun nuts have convinced me that they are the very people who should not have weapons.
Silly simplistic quotes won't change my mind.

Your post hansberry, reeks with rightwing propaganda, & is prejudiced off the truth so much you should be ashamed for posting this junk science. And trying to frame your post as some kind of intellectual insight is appalling to anyone with an above average understanding of the issue.

hansberrym: ... Saul {Cornell} and others argued for an individual rights interpretation, and in Heller SCOTUS found 9-0 on that point, overturning Silveira with regard to standing and on collective vs. individual right.

There are 3 possible rkba interpretations: pure individual, militia with narrow individual, & pure militia, but only the pure individual rkba comports with gunnuts. Haysberry above tries to mislead readers that a 9-0 unanimous decision was rendered by the supreme court in 2008 heller for an 'individual' rkba interpretation.
In a dissent {re heller}, by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, Justice Stevens: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves..

hansberry: US v. Miller taught that the RKBA was intended to protect possession of arms useful in warfare.. and thus sawed off shotguns, saturday night specials, and other weapons useful primarily to the criminal do not under that interpretation fall under the definition of "arms" in 2A.

A sawed off shotgun would be of immense use to soldiers in an army, & were temporarily banned in wwI since they cut men in half in trenches, it was the inhumane death;.
This is a ridiculous comment haysberry makes, conflating military weapons with service in a militia. The miller decision, unanimous 8-0 decision, wrote thusly (1 & 2):
1) "The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power - 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union'.... With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
2) "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed off shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.."

So hansberry preaches out the song & dance concoction the nra developed over the past 30 years to sidestep the miller decision, which clearly spoke for a militia interpretation.
Prudent people might wonder why, if this gun lobby song & dance were so, at least one of the 1939 Supreme Court Justices wouldn't have objected to the above wordings, 'hold on fellow justices, look at the way we've worded our ruling & opinions, future generations are going to think we ruled for a militia rights interpretation.' Yet not one single 1939 Justice objected - they were satisfied that what they wrote was fit & proper, and expressed their opinion of what the Second Amendment entailed, a right incumbent upon a well regulated militia.

haysberry: It is one thing to question the finer points of Heller which was decided 5-4; it is quite another to ignore US v. Miller,..

Yet you ignore the rulings of UNANIMOUS miller & twist it into some aberration.

haysberry: It is one thing to question the finer points of Heller which was decided 5-4; it is quite another to ignore US v. Miller, Aymette v. Tenn.

A ruling from 1840 on a man carrying a bowie knife, when courts were confused & splitting into schisms on interpreting the 2ndA, and which really deserves an entry in a book on early contradictory rulings, as well as being ambiguous in it's own right, oft reflecting militia views of the time.

haysberry: .. and a long string of state court cases which held that arms useful for military purposes are those arms which fall under the protection of 2A.

A long string of early court cases held for the militia interpretation too, & prohibitions on firearms.
.. and like what you cited: Silveira, again 9th Circuit.. held that the while RKBA is right of the people, it is a "Collective" right, and so individuals have no standing.

4th circuit- april love/pepersack, 1995: Johnson's argument that is an unconstitutional violation of his {2ndA} right to keep and bear arms is not new. See, e.g., US v. Miller(1939). The courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." Johnson presents no evidence {that} .. in any way affects the maintenance of a well regulated militia. Love has likewise not identified how her possession of a handgun will preserve or insure the effectiveness of the militia.

miller again: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed off shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument

...of the currently issued battle rifle/carbine (M16/M4). For that matter, so also would semiautomatic
handguns that hold more than 10 rounds as the M9 issue pistol is precisely that.

So hansberry preaches out the song & dance concoction the nra developed over the past 30 years to sidestep the miller decision, which clearly spoke for a militia interpretation.

"clearly", and yet the Miller court did not even ask whether Mr Miller was a member of any militia or was on duty at the time of his arrest.


The Aymette decsion was focused on the political right to keep and bear arms, and yet that court did not limit the right to keep arms to those in actual service of the state militia, instead they said it was an unqualified right of the citizens. Moreover, a later decision of the Tennessee court did find for an individual right to bear arms for defense of one's home, a right wihich was said to belong to the citizen as such, not as a soldier. There was a darn good reason for Stevens to avoid poking around those state court cases.


http://www.guncite.com/court/state/

Was the NRA around when Bliss was decided? When Aymette was decoided? When Nunn was decided? How can this be?

From dissent authored by Breyer:
The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e.,
one that is separately possessed, and may be separately
enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See,
e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS,
J., dissenting)


From dissent authored by STEVENS:
The question presented by this case is not whether the
Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an
“individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be
enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second
Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us
anything about the scope of that right.

This is a ridiculous comment haysberry makes, conflating military weapons with service in a militia. The miller decision, unanimous 8-0 decision, wrote thusly (1 & 2):

No jimmy, ridiculous is denying that service in a militia is military service.

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. my emphasis in boldface.


Even had the second amendment been worded "the right of the militia...." the ridiculously narrow interpretation urged by jimmy the one would still find no support in the Miller decision. That court defined the militia broadly (the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense) and said when called these men would arrive bearing arms supplied by themselves (meaning they had possession of said arms before being arriving for service) and the arms would in common use at the time, and part of the ordianry military equipment (see below).


In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

jimmy the one, did you read that last sentence before posting earlier?

It takes little effort to find the Aymentte decision. http://www.guncite.com/court/state/21tn154.html

A thousand inventions for inflicting death may be imagined, which might come under the appellation of an "arm" in the figurative (p.159)use of that term, and which could by no possibility be rendered effectual in war, or in the least degree aid in the common defence. Would it not be absurd to contend that a constitutional provision, securing to the citizens the means of their common defence, should be construed to extend to such weapons, although they manifestly would not contribute to that end, merely because, in the hands of an assassin, they might take away life?

The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing, or keeping weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defence. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defence is a great political right. It respects the citizens on the one hand and the rulers on the other. And although this right must be inviolably preserved, yet, it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited altogether from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed.

To hold that the legislature could pass no law upon this subject, by which to preserve the public peace, and protect our citizens from the terror, which a wanton and unusual exhibition of arms might produce, or their lives from being endangered by desperadoes with concealed arms, would be to pervert a great political right to the worst of purposes, and to make it a social evil, of infinitely a greater extent to society, than would result from abandoning the right itself.

Suppose it were to suit the whim of a set of ruffians to enter the theatre in the midst of the performance, with drawn swords, guns and fixed bayonets, or to enter the church in the same manner, during service, to the terror of the audience; and this were to become habitual; can it be, that it would be beyond the power of the legislature to pass laws to remedy such an evil? Surely not. If the use of arms in this way cannot be prohibited, it is in the power of fifty armed ruffians to break up the churches, and all other public assemblages, where they might lawfully come, and there would be no remedy. But we are perfectly satisfied that a remedy might be applied. The convention in securing the public political right in question, did not intend to take away from the legislature all power of regulating the social relations of the citizens upon this subject. It is true, it is somewhat difficult to draw the precise line where legislation must cease, and where the political right begins, but it is not difficult to state a case where the right of legislation (p.160)would exist. The citizens have the unqualified right to keep the weapon, it being of the character before described, as being intended by this provision. But the right to bear arms is not of that unqualified character. The citizens may bear them for the common defence; but it does not follow, that they may be borne by an individual, merely to terrify the people, or for purposes of private assassination. And as the manner in which they are worn, and circumstances under which they are carried, indicate to every man, the purpose of the wearer, the legislature may prohibit such manner of wearing as would never be resorted to by persons engaged in the common defence.



In short, the broad outlines of the meaning of "arms" in the right to keep and bear arms were laid out both in state court cases and in SCOTUS -well before Heller.

Good on those Democratic Senators who voted for at least a little bit of legislative sanity to be brought to this issue. That our "pro gun progressives" have flocked here to support the right-wing Republicans who voted against it surprises me not in the slightest.

More reason to get the host in place.

I think most folks here could have predicted this. This fight has been going on for years, remember back in the '90s, my RW congressman had a nasty verbal fight with Patrick Kennedy, saying that his wife needed an automatic weapon to protect herself when he was away in DC, as if Upstate NY is the Wild West. The clip showed up on Jay Leno.

Back in the 90's there were many politicians and law professors claiming that there was no individual RKBA at all. Hickman held the RKBA to be a states right and later Silveira held it to be a collective right. When these decisions were shown to be baseless, the limited individual right theory became the last remaining alternative to the broad individual right interpretation. It was as though any interpretation, no matter how extreme or lacking in historical support, was preferred to simply admitting that the RKBA was an individual right of the people.

Some predicted that once the courts held for an individual right, then opposiiton to further reasonable restrictions would lessen.
But that has not been the case, at least not yet. I believe this is because some people who claim only to want reasonable restrictions actually want to take away guns, and the arguments they present betray thier true intentions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172

Here's the SOP for this group:

"Discuss how to enact progressive gun control reform in a supportive environment. The group serves as a safe haven in which to mobilize supporters in support of measures reducing gun violence by changing laws, culture and practice at the municipal, state, and federal levels. While there is no single solution to the tragic epidemic of gun violence, members agree that more guns are not the solution to gun violence, and are expected to be supportive of the policies of progressive gun control reform organizations."

Now, I know you'll likely have ten million "good" reasons why you should simply ignore the SOP in order to spread your "RKBA rights" message, as well as endless diversions, obfuscations, and "yeah, but..." explanations.

We're not interested.

This is a group for gun control advocacy, not chatter about "some people who claim only to want reasonable restrictions actually want to take away guns".

You can move this conversation "forward" by returning to the proper forum for your viewpoint on this issue. In case you missed it the first time around in this reply, here's the link again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172

Hie thee hither.

You keep posting your right-wing BS constitutional scholarship in the gungeon, and we all promise to read the gungeon regularly to keep updated on the latest intellectual developments in the world of Scaliaphiles.

hansberry: "clearly", and yet the Miller court did not even ask whether Mr Miller was a member of any militia or was on duty at the time of his arrest.

Not asking doesn't mean they didn't know that he was just a member of the unorganized militia (if even that). That does'nt matter, the court decided whether miller (& layton) had a constitutional right to possess his sawed off shotgun, as he claimed 2ndA protection. The court did not decide whether he was legally allowed to own a firearm.
The 1939 court said to miller you are barking up the wrong tree by claiming 2ndA protection, since it doesn't protect an individual rkba, it only constitutionally protects gun ownership in the collective sense incumbent upon a WRM.

hansberry: Was the NRA around when Bliss was decided? When Aymette was decoided? When Nunn was decided?

No. Who cares? State case law wavered & waffled with local opinions tending to prevail. Tennessee was likely a frontier state about then.

hansberry: From dissent authored by Breyer: The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting)

Observe readers, how hansberry above lifted breyer OUT OF CONTEXT, to make it appear he was contending an individual rkba. Observe breyer in fuller context:

breyer in fuller context shows hansberry for a charlatan: In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred;
(2) As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces.” United States v. Miller,(1939); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
(3) The Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Miller..
(4) The right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. Robertson v. Baldwin, (1897).
My approach to this case, while involving the first three points, primarily concerns the fourth. I shall, as I said, assume with the majority that the Amendment, in addition to furthering a militia-related purpose, also furthers an interest in possessing guns for purposes of self-defense, at least to some degree. And I shall then ask whether the Amendment nevertheless permits the District handgun restriction at issue here.
Although I adopt for present purposes the majority’s position that the Second Amendment embodies a general concern about self-defense, I shall not assume that the Amendment contains a specific untouchable right to keep guns in the house to shoot burglars. The majority, which presents evidence in favor of the former proposition, does not, because it cannot, convincingly show that the Second Amendment seeks to maintain the latter in pristine, unregulated form. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/07-290/dissent2.html

Breyer was stating 4 criteria which he felt the court unanimously agreed formed a 'starting point' from which debate on 'interpreting & applying' the 2ndA ' could proceed. Breyer was NOT claiming he adhered to an individual rkba as hansberry deceptively tries to imply. Breyer was saying that the entire court subscribed to the belief that the 4 propositions formed a 'starting point' from which the 2ndA differences evolved.

hansberry: From dissent authored by STEVENS: The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an“individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

Are you kidding me? are you using this sophomoric approach to suggest that stevens was arguing for a pure individual rkba anywhere? he was surmising that when one considers 2ndA 'AS' an individual rkba, it does not say anything about the scope, that is the scope to what extent the handgun ban is constitutional or not. DUH.

scalia, heller: Justice Breyer’s {note not stevens} assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken.http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

er, no scalia, it's you & yours who were profoundly mistaken.
Hansberry, you've been shown to misinterpret stevens & take breyer out of context, in a pathetic attempt to mislead readers into thinking they both somehow supported an individual rkba. Stop with this already, you might fool gunnuts but the truth proves you to be just another spindoctor.

hansberry: No jimmy, ridiculous is denying that service in a militia is military service.

Observe above hans putting words in my mouth.

hans: Even had the second amendment been worded "the right of the militia...." the ridiculously narrow interpretation urged by jimmy the one would still find no support in the Miller decision. That court defined the militia broadly (the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense) and said when called these men would arrive bearing arms supplied by themselves (meaning they had possession of said arms before being arriving for service) and the arms would in common use at the time, and part of the ordianry military equipment.

How did you logically surmise, from what I've posted on this thread, that I support the narrow interpretation? I support it to the extent that a limited individual rkba would not have been denied by founding fathers, since guns were not a problem in communities & were still in a developmental stage at the time. The 1791 constitutional right to bear ARMS (not restricted to firearms) was militia based.
.. that men were to provide their own arms for militia was simply a pipe dream, was written in the militia act of 1792, & was what the founding fathers would liked to have seen, but it was not enforceable since less than half the militia men owned firearms (generally musket or rifle). Maybe one in 4 'white' militiamen owned a firearm, the rest (firearms) were holdovers from the revwar mainly, & stored in state armories for use when state militias drilled yearly.
Arms be in 'common use at the time' meant either a musket (~80%) or a rifle (~20) or far lesser a pistol (1 or 2%, revwar stats). These were single shot muzzle loading firearms, muskets were not that accurate, prone to misfire & unreliable in wet or damp weather. this 2ndA was a provision based upon a newly founded country using weapons in a relatively incipient stage.
It seems like you're just creating a diversion here, hans.

here hans seemingly reinforces what I wrote previously, that earlier state cases indeed supported the militia based interpretation, while simultaneously suggesting an individual rkba, often based on the ambiguity of the word 'people':
To hold that the legislature could pass no law upon this subject, by which to preserve the public peace, and protect our citizens from the terror, which a wanton and unusual exhibition of arms might produce, or their lives from being endangered by desperadoes with concealed arms, would be to pervert a great political right to the worst of purposes, and to make it a social evil, of infinitely a greater extent to society, than would result from abandoning the right itself.
It is true, it is somewhat difficult to draw the precise line where legislation must cease, and where the political right begins, but it is not difficult to state a case where the right of legislation (p.160)would exist. The citizens have the unqualified right to keep the weapon, it being of the character before described, as being intended by this provision. But the right to bear arms is not of that unqualified character. The citizens may bear them for the common defence; but it does not follow, that they may be borne by an individual, merely to terrify the people, or for purposes of private assassination. And as the manner in which they are worn, and circumstances under which they are carried, indicate to every man, the purpose of the wearer, the legislature may prohibit such manner of wearing as would never be resorted to by persons engaged in the common defence.

hans again (cannot argue with him on this!): The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing, or keeping weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defence. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defence is a great political right. It respects the citizens on the one hand and the rulers on the other. And although this right must be inviolably preserved, yet, it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited altogether from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed.