Gun Control & RKBA

Claiming "centuries of precedent" would imply that there are Supreme Court cases, dating back hundreds of years, which follow the "collective rights" interpretation. I don't think that there are any Supreme Court cases besides Miller, a 1939 case, which even started to define that right.

As far as state court interpretation, well, the article displays a form of dishonesty which many lawyers are very familiar with. When faced with a blizzard of cases interpreting a particular phrase, cherry pick the cases which support your argument, describe them in great detail ("There are MANY cases which support me&quot , and conveniently omit all cases which contradict you. In this particular article, watch the author find one state court case which does support his/her case (the 1840 Tennessee case), while casually omitting, say, Nunn v. Georgia (1846, Georgia state supreme court held that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms for self-defense).

I wouldn't say whether the Georgia or Tennessee interpretation was predominant, but I do think the unmentioned nature of Nunn discredits the author's attempt to claim that one particular interpretation was definitive. The least they could do with their research is actually offer an honest survey of ALL gun law cases interpreting the scope of "keep and bear arms". All this article (And you!) seem to be doing is going fishing for a favorable case and ignoring contradicting caselaw. Not a great start at offering a compelling definition of the "true" meaning of the Second Amendment.

Edit: And the Nunn court's view of the Second Amendment? Hoo boy, is that a doozy for gun control. "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State." That is, in this view, the Second Amendment does not limit the keeping and bearing of arms to members of the militia; rather, it ensures that everyone has the right to be armed to the teeth so that if the state wishes to create or expand its well-regulated militia, it may draw from its own gun-totin' populace. Super short version: Guns for everyone!