Which was in question until the DC and Chicago Supreme Court rulings, which answered the question on whether or not by people it was referring to the militia, citizens or both. As I stated in my post, its been applied to the individual, however those Supreme Court rulings did not change the previous rulings they made allowing the states to regulate how those "arms" are regulated in terms of where they can be carried and in what manner.
It was only in "question" for those who sought to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. Look, the SCOTUS is not the end all and be all of the protection of rights, the People are. The state has a compelling argument when it comes to the regulation of militias. Militias, however, are comprised of the People, and if a "well regulated militia" is to form it is reliant upon the arms the People who comprise "keep and bear". A militia that has been restricted in terms of the arms it can keep and bear is obviously a crippled militia. What is the point of having a well regulated militia if they cannot match an enemy military - both foreign and domestic - in terms of arms?
On the contrary it has everything to do with this. In the state of Tennessee she has the legal right to carry a concealed weapon.
A "legal" right is a granted right. She has the unalienable right to keep and bear arms.
That right does not extend to a different state when that state has no reciprocal agreements validating her TN ccw.
All rights are universal and work the same on Mars, or Jupiter in the very same way they work here on Earth.
Again the Supreme Court did not change their previous rulings on the ability of the states to regulate how the arms are carried and where they can or cannot be taken. You are ignoring established case law.
The Supreme Court has never reversed the dreadful Dred Scott ruling either.
Show me in the 2nd amendment where its specifically states a person has a right to carry a weapon concealed?
The Second Amendment is not a grant of a right to keep and bear arms it is an express prohibition on government from infringement of such a right. You show me where in the Second Amendment it specifically states that government can infringe upon that right if the weapon is concealed.
If you are going to argue a strict interpretation then anything not specifically stated as the purview of the federal government is reserved for the states.
Outside of protection of that right, the Second Amendment is not under the "purview" of the federal government. How many times do I have to assert this? The Second Amendment is an express prohibition against the infringement of of the People to keep and bear arms. It is not a power, outside regulation of militias, given to the federal government, nor is it any power reserved for the states. There is a reason the Ninth Amendment comes before the Tenth, and that is that the rights of the People are superior to states rights.
Secondly, again, you are ignoring established case law.
I am not ignoring any case law. When any court is in error, it is up to the People to correct that error.
The US constitution is meant to be a living document, able to change with the times, as we saw with prohibition, slavery and the right for women to vote.
No it is not Dr. Frankenstein, it is meant to establish a federal government. The Bill of Rights was only added after the fact, and hotly debated as to whether it even should be added, in hopes of preventing the sort of nonsense you seem to be advocating right now.
Actually there was, which is why it took so long for the definition to be clarified.
Actually there wasn't, and I have no idea what you mean by "definition to be clarified". The fact of the matter is that since "arms" is not defined by the Second Amendment we must turn to the usage of the word in the ordinary meaning of that word when the Second Amendment was written. This is legal principle is explained in Eisner v. McComber.
As far as my opinion on well regulated militia I actually agree with you. If the Federal Government has the ability to draft people into military service, then any person that can affect is part of a well regulated militia.
I am not sure we do agree. I am not speaking to conscription. I am speaking to the reason the People have the right to keep and bear arms, and it sure as hell ain't about conscription.
I am out of character space. I'll end this post here.
