Not a constitutional right. Also, exercised as an individual. Which is to say, I, individually can ask for it, and sue for the lack thereof if necessary.
Not a constitutional right. Also, exercised as an individual.
Exercised as an individual.
Not a constitutional right. Also, exercised as an individual.
What does it even mean for something to be a collective right? Who can exercise it? It’s not the states. The states have powers (10th amendment: powers not delegated are reserved). People have rights (9th amendment: rights not listed may still exist). If it were a power of the states, it’d be called a power.
And if it were a power of the states, rather than a right of individuals, why would state constitutions have analogous provisions?
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state
-PA declaration of rights 1776
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State
-VT 1777
That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
-KY 1792
And not just explicitly contemporaneously with the US constitution:
That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and state
-AL 1819
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired
-AZ 1912
The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question
-CO 1876
Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
-CT 1812
A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State
-DE 1987
The people shall have the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the lawful authority of the State.
-FL 1868
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
-IL 1970
If it all is a collective right, then why are there so many state constitutions from 50+ years ago that say it’s an individual right, not necessarily associated with militia service.
And Heller I isn’t the first time SCOTUS ruled that it’s an individual right. It’s actually Dred Scott! As horrible and racist as that decision was, it explicitly listed one of the rights Scott would enjoy would be to " to keep and carry arms wherever they went"
It’s not clearly labelled as addressing the administration of militias. And not being enumerated on its own doesn’t mean it’s not a standalone right. Otherwise the right to petition the Government for redress of grievances is only related to the ability to practice whatever religion you want.
HAhahahaha! Aside from Dred Scott, there is no court sanctified read. There’s Cruikshank, which read the 14th as not incorporating the 2nd. Presser, which says private militias can be regulated (but the 2nd doesn’t protect a right to create a private militia). It may, depend in how exactly you read it, also say that states can’t entirely ban guns from everyone, because the US government needs an armed body of people to form a militia. Miller v. Texas which says the 14th doesn’t incorporate the 2nd. United States v. Miller which says military style weapons are especially protected by the 2nd. It’s also odd in that the defendant was dead, and so the case moot before the decision rendered, and there was no defense at the court. It was strictly the prosecution-appellants that were represented. And then you have Heller I, which reads the 2nd as an individual right. And MacDonald which overrules Cruikshank and says the 2nd actually is incorporated, and applies to the states even if they don’t have their own state constitutional provision.
There’s no actual jurisprudence from SCOTUS stating that the 2nd is a “collective right” whatever that means. The closest is: the 2nd amendment being ignored, as other portions of the Bill of Rights were.
And you don’t even manage to address the objection to Living Constitutionalism: if the constitution means whatever is convenient, then it’s not something that limits. It can’t be relied upon. If it’s re-interpreted however we like for now, it’ll be re-interpreted later, probably in ways we don’t like.
