No. of Recommendations: 2
The state has the collective right to organize a militia, and given that, the individuals have the right to bear arms.
I'm tried to restate in my terms what I've gleaned the collective approach is to the 2A.
Aside from the Collective approach the Constitution designates Congress to have the most power and the State has the power to appoint officers and train. So that was discussed at the various ratifying conventions and Madison listened to people's worries and promised to address them at the first Congress. He kept his promise. Since that is in the Constitution prior to the passage of the 2A - what was Madison listening to at these conventions?
I haven't read anything about the 2A and these conventions, but one conversation might be something like:
Congress has the greater power over the militia?
That's to provide for the common defense. That's why Congress has the power to call up the militia.
And the state has the power to appoint officers and to train the militia?
Yes, and the state has the power to call up the militia should there be an emergency and a need to keep the peace.
So it's possible for militia to be called up from different states to go into another state if widespread violence can't be contained?
Yes, at the direction of Congress militia may enter other states to help keep the peace.
So might it be possible for the militias to enter another state and disarm that state?
No. It is the State that determines who can be armed within the state
Does it say that in the Constitution?
No, but it isn't in the enumerated powers of the new government,so the government doesn't have that power
Still, we'd like to see it written that the Government doesn't have the power to disarm the people.
That's a good point and I'll take it up at the first Congress.
But who really knows? For most of the life of the nation, the 2A was treated as a collective right I think.
