have you studied heller vs d.c.?
Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courtsand legislators, from immediately after its ratification through thelate 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.
I mean if you actually read it, it's a done deal.
a three-judge panel of the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Colombia, by a two to one vote, reversed the lower court's ruling (
Parker v. District of Columbia (478 F. 3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). The appeals court held that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to keep and bear arms” and that the District's total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense violated that right (
Id.,
at 395, 399-401).
Operative Clause. In Scalia's view, the text and history of the amendment's operative clause (i.e., “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”) is controlling. “The people” refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset, such as the militia; the phrase to “keep and bear arms” means to have weapons and carry them, and not just in a military context; and “the right of the people” refers to a preexisting right. Scalia reasons that these textual elements show that the amendment “guarantee(s) the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” and that the amendment's text implicitly recognizes the preexistence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed” (Id., at 2790-2797). Congress merely codified a widely recognized right; it did not create a new right (Id., at 2797).
Prefatory Clause. According to Scalia, the prefatory clause (“well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”) comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia as being necessary to deny Congress the power to abridge the individual right to keep and bear arms. And while the reason for codifying the prefatory clause “was to ensure the preservation of a
well-regulated militia, this does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the right to bear arms; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting” (
Id.,
at 2801).
The Court did not identify the specific standard it used to make its individual-right determination. But it rejected the rational basis standard. And it rejected Breyer's interest-balancing approach, which asks whether a law “burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out or proportion to the statute's salutary effects upon other important governmental interests” (
Id., at 2852). According to Scalia, the Second Amendment is the
“product of an interest-balancing by the people . . . and it elevates above all other interests the right of law–abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home” (
Heller at 2821). The enumeration of that right, Scalia reasons:
takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject of future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all (Id., at 2821).
While acknowledging the serious problem of handgun violence, Scalia asserts that the Second Amendment “necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,” including an absolute ban on handguns in the home for self-defense (
Id., at 2822).
some similar cases which might be of interest
I believe I have posted, probably several time old writings, letters etc of people carrying weapons pre constitution and that it was part of the English common law
so that is what was going on pre constitution and post constitution, it has always been that way. When you understand that the constitution and bill of rights is a formal acknowledgement of inalienable rights, English common law was used for many of those rights which includes the 2a.
