Gun Control & RKBA

hack: Yet the founding fathers, as Englishmen, enjoyed an individual right to bear arms as delineated in the British Bill of Rights of 1690.

More 2nd amendment mythology (& was 1688 or 89); scalia wrote similar about the English 'have arms' decree in 2008 heller decision, only to be chastised by a consortium of 21 british scholars (most living in USA, some American):

british scholars: THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD REEXAMINE PRIOR FINDINGS IN LIGHT OF SOUNDER SCHOLARSHIP WHEN INTERPRETING RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTION
Amici Curiae are scholars and professional historians whose collective expertise covers the following areas: the history of Stuart England, the Restoration, the 1689 Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, the Early Republic, American legal history, American Constitutional history, and Anglo-American history.
Amici Curiae have an interest in the Court having a well-informed and accurate understanding of the Anglo-American tradition to “have arms” from which {2A} originated

The “have arms” provision in the English Declaration of Rights, which was later codified as the Bill of Rights, provided two protections to the individual. First, the right to “have arms” gave certain persons (qualified Protestants) the right to possess arms to take part in defending the realm against enemies within (i.e., Catholics) as well as foreign invaders. Second, the grant of a right to “have arms” was a compromise of a dispute over control of the militia that gave Parliament concurrent power (with the sovereign) over arming the landed gentry. It allowed Parliament to invoke its right of “self-preservation” and “resistance” should the sovereign usurp the laws, liberties, estates, and Protestant religion of the nation.

...the {US Supreme} Court examined the English Declaration of Rights of 1689, correctly finding that the right to “have arms” in Article VII is the basis of the right enshrined in the Second Amendment. The Court also correctly recognized that the SecondAmendment right to bear arms was an individual right to have and use arms for “self preservation and defense” as in its English predecessor.
However, contrary to discredited scholarship upon which Heller relied {to wit, joyce malcolm}, the right to “have arms” embodied in the English Declaration of Rights did not intend to protect an individual’s right to possess, own, or usearms for private purposes such as to defend a home against burglars (what, in modern times, we mean when we use the term “self-defense”). Rather, it referred to a right to possess arms in defense of the realm.
Accordingly, the right to own or use arms for private purposes is not a right deeply rooted in our nation’s tradition, and should not be incorporated as against the states by the 14th Amendment. http://docplayer.net/1918043-Supreme-court-of-the-united-states.html

The Court “throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of constitutional decisions.” That the Heller decision is recent only weighs in favor of quick action by the Court to correct its error of historical interpretation.
As set forth below, reconstructing the historical meaning of the right to “have arms” deserves better than Petitioners’ selective reading and mischaracterization of Blackstone’s reference to the “natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_09_10_08_1521_RespondentAmCuEnglishHistorians.authcheckdam.pdf

Indeed, after receiving this horrific news after posting bogus info in heller, scalia removed any reference to the british have arms being an individual rkba, in subsequent McDonald.