> the US Code literally says almost all able bodied 17-45 y/o males are in an unorganized militia
The US Code's definition of a word won't affect most judges' perspective on an amendment since the US Code was published about 140 years after the Second Amendment was ratified. It's an interesting footnote but not much more.
> If you're deferring to Supreme Court, you know the modern interpretation is that it is the individual right of the people
See this op-ed from 6 attorneys general in '92:
> For more than 200 years, the federal courts have unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organized state militia; it does not guarantee immediate access to guns for private purposes
Really, what you're espousing as factual is utterly the crux of the entire Second Amendment debate, and it wasn't until Emerson in 2001, and the Supreme Court's subsequent ruling in 2008 in Heller, that your view even really had precedent. Before 2001, all federal circuit courts that ruled on the issue had adopted the collective right approach. 21 years is not a lot of time compared to 200 years.
That's not to say you're wrong – these are interpretations – but rather that yours is but one interpretation, and case law could change on a dime depending on future court makeups.
There's a further interpretation between ours that finds that while individuals do have a right to bear arms, they are permitted to only do so "if needed for military purposes," i.e. as part of a militia. This was one that even Breyer, who just retired, held.
>The US Code's definition of a word won't affect most judges' perspective on an amendment
It's not the amendment that it defines though. It is defining members of a militia. Can the government not assign subjects to a militia? That is what this code does. Are you saying this is an illegal militia? Or not a militia at all? US Judges yield to chevron deference all the time including ATF's interpretations on restriction of 2A, why would they not respect US code to be able to define a militia?
The right of "the people" to keep and bear arms is not interpretation. It doesn't say right of the militia it says right of the people. It is not interpretation to note the right was not explicitly assigned to the militia.
Re "the people" as collective right: Does the right of the people to be secure in their persons (4th) or to petition their government (1st) not individual rights? Do I have to be a part of the militia or collective to assert 4th and 1st amendment rights?
> It doesn't say right of the militia it says right of the people
I suspect you haven't been reading my links :)
One reading of the Second Amendment has the opening clause restricting which "people" are being talked about, i.e. "people in a well-regulated militia." This was the belief enshrined in the Supreme Court until 2008, where Scalia had to argue why the prefatory clause is irrelevant.
> Can the government not assign subjects to a militia? That is what this code does. Are you saying this is an illegal militia? Or not a militia at all?
The common understanding of that specific clause as seen through the lens of James Madison (see: Federalist No. 46) is that it protects the rights of National Guard members to bear arms.
I see. So "the people" which is taken as an individual right when mentioned in the first and fourth amendment, magically becomes the militia and not the people in the second amendment (even though they could have said right of the militia instead and did not.)
Then a militia can't be specified by US code, because that wasn't there during ratification of the bill of rights. No they were talking only of the modern National Guard which did not come until 1903, which they envisioned as the militia while magically excluding militia in the US Code. Nevermind that the militias in the late 1700s were often closely related to the body noted in the US Code, which was basically every able bodied youngish man (and possibly also some others.)
>This was the belief enshrined in the Supreme Court until 2008
"Enshrined" is not a good word for it. For instance, as far back as the shameful period of slavery in the US, the supreme court in Dred Scott made the shameful but telling statement that argued blacks can't be considered citizens in part because that would give these black individuals the right of citizens such as the ability to keep and carry arms.
What would be "bad faith" would be to portray a wide swath of firearms law which you so gleefully describe as "enshrined" prior to 2008 (and especially prior to ~1930) as anything more than a racist and systemic effort to disproportionately strip minorities (especially blacks) of their second amendment rights. As a pragmatic reality the white INDIVIDUAL could buy and bear even machine guns up until the 1920s with basically no scrutiny, despite your "enshrined" reality that might suggest otherwise.
Of course, perhaps on this occasion the "bad faith" claim is merely a face-saving attempt or a mental shut-down after various mental gymnastics come against the hard reality of the fact patterns present.
The US Code's definition of a word won't affect most judges' perspective on an amendment since the US Code was published about 140 years after the Second Amendment was ratified. It's an interesting footnote but not much more.
> If you're deferring to Supreme Court, you know the modern interpretation is that it is the individual right of the people
See this op-ed from 6 attorneys general in '92:
> For more than 200 years, the federal courts have unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organized state militia; it does not guarantee immediate access to guns for private purposes
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/10/03/i...
Really, what you're espousing as factual is utterly the crux of the entire Second Amendment debate, and it wasn't until Emerson in 2001, and the Supreme Court's subsequent ruling in 2008 in Heller, that your view even really had precedent. Before 2001, all federal circuit courts that ruled on the issue had adopted the collective right approach. 21 years is not a lot of time compared to 200 years.
That's not to say you're wrong – these are interpretations – but rather that yours is but one interpretation, and case law could change on a dime depending on future court makeups.
There's a further interpretation between ours that finds that while individuals do have a right to bear arms, they are permitted to only do so "if needed for military purposes," i.e. as part of a militia. This was one that even Breyer, who just retired, held.