[rhino369]

Because grammatically (then or now), that part of the sentence doesn't limit the independent clause--"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If the first amendment said, "A well read electorate, being necessary to a free state, the right the people to free speech, shall not be infringed," would you say it only covered political speech?

Practically, I don't see how it makes any difference. Handguns are used by every single armed forces in the world. Any militia would need them anyway. If I can't own a handgun, how could I serve in a militia?

[extra88]

> If the first amendment said, "A well read electorate, being necessary to a free state, the right the people to free speech, shall not be infringed," would you say it only covered political speech?

I would say the intent is much narrower than the actual text so while "a well read electorate" would call for more than just political speech, such a First Amendment would be allow more laws to restrict speech without being unconstitutional.

People in the armed forces don't own the weapons they use now. Today, the National Guard is basically the "Militia." Even if you think militia needs to include organizations not directed by governors, weapons can be owned by smaller political entities (towns, counties, etc.) or NGOs. In any case, weapons for a militia can be stored in an armory, not in every member's home or on their person all the time.

Yet again, even if some of the weapons were stored in the home, there's nothing unconstitutional about laws requiring trigger locks or other safety measures for their storage.

[nokcha]

>I would say the intent is much narrower than the actual text

Justice Scalia rejected the notion of giving much importance to the intent of drafters. His objective was to interpret the text according to its original public meaning.

As Scalia noted in Heller, the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right"; it didn't grant a new right. And although "self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification", "it was the central component of the right itself".

>People in the armed forces don't own the weapons they use now.

That's exactly the system that the framers wanted to avoid. The citizen militia (with their own privately owned arms) was envisioned as an alternative to a standing army in times of peace.

>Today, the National Guard is basically the "Militia."

The National Guard is the organized part of the militia. The unorganized militia has much broader membership. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

>there's nothing unconstitutional about laws requiring trigger locks or other safety measures for their storage.

The trigger-lock requirement wasn't limited to storage. It didn't have an exception to allow removing the trigger lock to use to the gun in self-defense or for carrying holstered on one's person. That's why it was ruled unconstitutional.