“That wasn’t the understanding for centuries”
More than centuries
In 1982 Orrin Hatch commisined a reports which concluded “What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear—and LONG LOST—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms”
(emphasis added) the idea that it applies to individuals was not a widely held view. it was “long lost” they dug it up
there were not “many” supreme court cases involving the second amendment (in fact it was one of the least discussed amendments) . And NONE of them (until Heller and then reaffirmed in Mcdonald) took the opposite opinion
Of the few that disucssed it United States v. Cruikshank (1875) and Presser v. Illinois, (1886) both ruled that it did not apply to States. Miller (1939) we mentioned. Barrett v. United States (1976) Upheld gun control measures . US v Lopez (1995) was largely over the commerce clause though indirectly related to the second. NONE of these ruled an individual has aright to bear arms
“The US never faced a legal effort to implement total gun control”
as mentioned many states, from the founding had gun measures in place .These were not challenged
“pretty clearly give individuals”
The opposite is true it clearly applies to militia. Excuse me a well regulated milita not just any old milita.
So why the phrase “A well regulated Militia,” would the amendment mena anything different if it just said ” the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
No other amendment has an opening .
Eg ” Practicing religion being a key part of life Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ” or “An infomred populace being neccesary for an involved state abridging the freedom of speech or of the press shall not…”.”
Why that phrase? what does it add?