The idea that the second amendment protects an individuals right to bare arms is NEW!!!
No it isn't. The idea goes back to the English Bill of Rights of 1689: "Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law".
The militia stuff comes from the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776: "Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution;
The individual rights in the Bill of Rights are not
granted to the individuals by the Bill - the Bill identifies rights that exist and that won't be taken away.
The 1st amendment doesn't grant us free speech. We have free speech. The 1st prevents the government from taking that away from us.
Look at the 4th: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
That's not granting us that right, we have that right. It simply says that it won't be violated.
That's where the second part of US v Miller comes in: "neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence".
The rights do not depend on the Bill of Rights for their existence.
And here's the next line: "The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."
So it doesn't grant us the right because we have it by default. It just prevents the government from taking that right away.
Make sense?
™ Version 4.2
