Supreme Court on the 2A

The latest myth to address is the false statement that District of Columbia vs. Heller is modern revisionist interpretation, and altered existing precedent on the position of the 2nd Amendment being nothing more than a collective right. Truth is, only one of the previous cases ever addressed the 2nd Amendment in this manner, and it affirmed that it was in fact an individual right (Presser v. Illinois, 1886). Heller was the second broad review on this question, which re-affirmed that individual right and established self-defense as one of the intents.

Before we get into actual cases, it's worth noting that early state and federal supreme court justices commented on the 2nd Amendment. St. George Tucker, a Virginia State Supreme Court justice, published the following in his 1803 addition of Blackstone's "Commentaries":

The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally under the specious pretext of preserving the game; a never-failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure. . . . True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy; but their right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words “suitable to their condition or degree” have been interpreted to authorize the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, by any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game.

Joseph Story, a US Supreme Court justice, also recognized the 2nd Amendment as an individual right in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States:

The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Back to cases, United States v. Cruikshank – A case involving the KKK, where minorities were being denied their 2nd Amendment rights (just like rich elitists are trying to deny that right today). It did not address the scope of the 2nd Amendment, but did affirm that the 14th Amendment prevents States from restricting the right to bear arms. The court only overturned the charges against the racists on grounds that suppression of rights needed to be addressed on the State level and not Federal, when suppression is being inflicted by an individual and not by State law.

Presser v. Illinois – This was the first time the 2nd Amendment was questioned as either an individual right or a collective right. The court affirmed the position that it was an individual right. The only established restriction was that citizen military organizations can be restricted from drilling within cities unless authorized.

“We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

…

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect. "

United States v. Miller – A case involving a sawed off shotgun. The court ruled that it was not “ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to common defense.” They went on to state that the intent was for ordinary men to be able to bear arms SUPPLIED BY THEMSELVES for defense, which was used as further justification in the Heller case. Where the court had made an error, was that the defense had not appeared and never explained that sawed off shotguns were in fact used during WW1 – meaning the basis for their decision allowing regulation in this case was incorrect. It’s also important to note that this ruling does not justify banning sawed off shotguns, but only their regulation through a tax stamp.

District of Columbia v. Heller – A case involving a handgun owned for personal protection. Re-affirmed Presser v. Illinois, and addressed the individual right to bear arms includes self-defense.

McDonald v. City of Chicago – Affirms that the 2nd amendment is protected from local laws by the 14th amendment.

Caetano v. Massachusetts – Affirms that rights are protected even for technologies that have advanced.

Anti-rights mythology of the "well regulated militia"

The first argument against a citation of the 2nd Amendment seems to always be a curt, cherry picked quotation: "well regulated militia". The implication is that if you aren't in a designated organization that trains and drills, then the 2nd Amendment does not apply to you.

Lets break this down in two parts - "well regulated" and "militia". The use of "well regulated" was used frequently during this time period, and is perfectly explained by Brian T. Halonen:

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

The key point being, "well regulated" was directed at assuring functionality, and not instruction to enforce strict limitations.

As for "militia", at no point do these individuals question what a militia was to those living in the 1790's or early 1800's, but instead ignorantly cling to an assumption of it either being the National Guard or other government structured entity.

This is the historic context of militias in early America: A militia was not a well-trained, government controlled army. It’s a body, that if needed, can be called forth on the peoples terms – and not always of a specific list. In many cases, simply the assumption of being able-bodied met the obligation to answer the call. Only the strictest forms involved conscription, and even those cases involved bearing a personally owned firearm rather than something that was issued. Militias were also led by one of their own whom they personally selected rather than being anointed by officials. This is one of the purist forms of self-determination from government, and why the 2A was one of the most strongly phrased with “shall not be infringed”.

Interestingly, the Pennsylvania constitution from the same time period doesn't contain any militia phrasing. From Article IX Section 21:

That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and unalterably established, WE DECLARE,

(snip 20 sections)

Section 21. That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state shall not be questioned.

Those that still cling to the myth that the right to bear arms applies only to those serving in a militia often ignore the definition in the Militia Act of 1903. Given this definition, if I were to concede that the 2nd amendment refers to a collective right (I do not), men between the ages of 17 and 45 would still have a right to bear arms without infringement. See the relevant text in the US code here:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

I suspect collectivist clingers will make up reasons this doesn't matter. In any case, it's not relevant to understanding the intention of the amendment, since the founders established no such age limitation.

Richard Henry Lee refuted the notion that the militia referred to a select corp, now known as the National Guard:

But, say gentlemen, the general militia are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns, cannot well be called out, or be depended upon; that we must have a select militia; that is, as I understand it, particular corps or bodies of young men, and of men who have but little to do at home, particularly armed and disciplined in some measure, at the public expense, and always ready to take the field. These corps, not much unlike regular troops, will ever produce an inattention to the general militia; and the consequence has ever been, and always must be, that the substantial men, having families and property, will generally be without arms, without knowing the use of them, and defenseless; whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all pro-miscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
                                   -R. Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer 53 (1788)

He reiterated this stance again:

No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defence of the state. . . . Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.        
                                     -State Gazette (Charleston) (8 September 1788)

If you want further proof of intent behind the 2nd Amendment then refer to the Federalist Papers, which were written and distributed by the Founding Fathers in order to justify and convince the original member states to ratify the Constitution. In “Federalist No 46”, Monroe contrasts our newly formed nation to Europe, where the people are not trusted with arms and therefore would be unable to shake off the yokes of tyranny if imposed. He wrote this after having just risked everything in a war against an oppressive ruler. The first shots of this war, by the way, were fired when British troops marched towards Lexington and Concord to confiscate firearms.

Samuel Adams also clearly stated that the constitution is not intended to prevent citizens from keeping their own arms:

“And that the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…”                                                   
“Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” pp. 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

I could go on like this for an entire book. It is trivial for anyone willing to spend a little time researching the topic to determine that the founders intended that every man be armed on their own volition.

The Supreme Court relied on these same primary sources and many more in the Heller (2008) opinion when it held that:

(starts on page 570)
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it con­notes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 576–595.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 595–600.

Note the page citations lead to the details within the linked document that support the court's conclusion.

At this point it should be clear that it is at best ignorant and at worst propaganda to peddle the idea that the constitution only protects a collective right to bear arms.