(BTW, I apologize for the delays in responding, as I am working nights and don't do a whole lot of DU reading while driving!)
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0578.htm
##"In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court answered a long-standing constitutional question about whether the right to “keep and bear arms” is an individual right unconnected to service in the militia or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.
By a five to four margin, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful use, such as self-defense, in the home (emphasis ours - in original-AHIA). Accordingly, it struck down as unconstitutional provisions of a D.C. law that (1) effectively banned possession of handguns by non law enforcement officials and (2) required lawfully owned firearms to be kept unloaded, disassembled, or locked when not located at a business place or being used for lawful recreational activities.
According to the Court, the ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Similarly, the requirement that any firearm in a home be disassembled or locked made “it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” These laws were unconstitutional “under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights.” But the Court did not cite a specific standard in making its determination, and it rejected the interest-balancing standard; proposed by Justice Breyer, and a “rational basis” standard.
The Second Amendment right is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful,” according to the Court. These include laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” (5) prohibit “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, and Thomas.
Justices Stevens and Breyer filed separate dissenting opinions. Stevens asserts that the Second Amendment (1) protects the individual right to bear arms only in the context of military service and (2) does not limit government's authority to regulate civilian use or possession of firearms. He describes the majority's individual-right holding as “strained and unpersuasive”; its conclusion, “overwrought and novel.” Stevens was joined in his dissent by Justices Breyer, Ginsberg, and Souter.
In his dissent, Breyer argues that even if the Second Amendment, in addition to militia-related purposes, protects an individual's right of self-defense, that assumption should be the beginning of the constitutional inquiry, not the end. Breyer contends that there are no purely logical or conceptual ways to determine the constitutionality of gun control laws, such as the District's law. Thus, a sounder approach would be a “balancing test” that focuses on “practicalities” to determine what gun control laws would be consistent with the amendment even if it is interpreted as protecting a “wholly separate interest in individual self-defense.” Breyer concludes that under a balancing test that takes into account the extensive evidence of gun crime and gun violence in urban areas, the District's gun law would be constitutionally permissible. Breyer was joined in his dissent by Justices Ginsberg, Souter, and Stevens."##
(Other bolding and emphasis mine, if and when the Admins ever turn the HTML back on! - AHIA)
************************************************************************************************
It always seemed to me that the intent of the wording the 2nd was that all households could and likely should keep a musket near the door, so that when a rider came by shouting "TO ARMS!" the gun was readily at hand such that the individuals could grab them and proceed to a mustering point to join up with that "Well Regulated Militia". Another point that also needs to be considered is that many of those attending the Constitutional Congress were AGAINST the idea of having a standing army, so the idea of having that musket ready to go, coupled with the "Well Regulated" portion meant that the new states could bring up an armed force directly from the civilian population in very short order.
BTW and as a side note, the next time you get into an argument with someone who is a "strict constitutionalist" ask them if they are then willing to get rid of the Air Force and the Army, as neither of those is mentioned in the constitution as being permanent (The Air Force for obvious reasons). Only the Navy is mentioned as a permanent military force.
I have a book on the First Amendment titled "Why the Religious Right is Wrong on Separation of Church and State" that delves into the numerous previous drafts and wordings of that portion of the Bill of Rights. The framers changed a word here, a sentence there, a comma here, etc. A BUNCH OF TIMES. I can't help but think they did the same with all of them, the 2nd included.
= new reply since forum marked as read
was such that they put that prohibition in before the right to be secure in your papers and effects and to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.
