[naravara]

There is no individual "right to own guns" in the Constitution. When the second amendment talks about the right of "the people" it means as a collective. It's talking about curtailing the Federal government from restricting states from raising state militias. But we don't have a state militia anymore, it's been replaced by the National Guard.

There was no serious jurisprudence to interpret the second amendment as an individual right until the 60s. Guns were acknowledged as a practical tool and people saw practical issues with banning them, but that was it.

[dmm]

The supreme court disagrees with you and the only way to change that is to change the ratio of justices. Why do we even bother with a legislative body at this point?

[rayiner]

The first amendment also refers to “the right of the people to peaceably assemble.” By your logic, is there no individual right to protest? The fourth amendment refers to “the right of the people to be secure in their persons.” Does that mean that you don’t have an individual right against unreasonable search and seizure?

You’re correct to identify “the people” as the key phrase, and you’re correct that the second amendment is referring to a collective right. But so are the other amendments referring to “the people.” The constitution is talking about a whole society, not individuals. E.g. the fourth amendment guarantees a society where “the people” aren’t subject to unreasonable searches from police. But that collective right also protects the individual. What applies to the collective applies to its individual constituents.

This makes sense in the context of the 2nd amendment: militias were “bring your own firearm.” The collective right was enforced through the individual guarantee. There was no need to interpret the second amendment in the past because it really wasn’t unclear what the framers meant. Some of the key figures in the Supreme court’s recent jurisprudence on the second amendment were prominent liberal academics like Larry Tribe and Akhil Amar. Here is Larry Tribe talking about how he changed his mind on the second amendment once he started seriously researching it: https://hls.harvard.edu/today/why-i-changed-my-mind/ (scroll down).

Your strongest argument is that the second amendment only applies to the federal government, not the states. That’s clearly true, but that’s true of every other amendment as well. The first amendment’s Establishment Clause clearly was intended to prevent the federal government from interfering with established state churches, or creating its own. The “wall of separation” phrasing wasn’t used by the Supreme Court until 1946. (Ironically, it was quoting the individual views of Thomas Jefferson, who also believed we should overthrow the government every couple of decades. With guns that every individual was entitled to bear!)

I’m willing to entertain the view that our whole incorporation doctrine is non-sensical, but that cuts more broadly than I think most gun control advocates would like to go. Moreover, the notion that the 14th amendment was meant to apply the second amendment to states is far better supported than the incorporation of the first amendment. Disarmament of freed slaves was specifically one of the concerns at the time: https://www.encounterbooks.com/features/racist-roots-gun-con...

[psychphysic]

Hot take, I'm not even sure "rights" apply to anything but individual humans.

[rayiner]

That's a distinctly 20th century individualistic take. From the Magna Carta to the Constitution, "rights" are primarily collective rights. They structure the relationship between the government and "the people." The First Amendment is not there so individuals can "express themselves." It's to maintain the communication and transparency necessary for democracy to work.

[psychphysic]

Be that as it may. Who or what has the rights described?

Do corporations have a right to assembly what does that even mean?

Or do it's individuals have rights which under some circumstances make it seem like a corporation has rights?

Employees have a right to freedom of speech, so companies can make statements protected by the right to free speech.

[selimthegrim]

This is important because undocumented immigrants are starting to assert their Second Amendment rights.

[dixie_land]

Don't forget Super PACs! /s

[naravara]

> By your logic, is there no individual right to protest?

I'm not sure to what extent there is one to be honest. We don't really have concerns around enforcing public nuisance statutes when someone is being a public nuisance. I think some cities still have (largely unenforced) laws on the books about fining you for swearing. We only really extend such actions protection if it's being done as part of a larger demonstration and, even then, people can get wrangled into "free speech zones" or ordered to disperse when the public safety situation gets out of hand. In practice it's difficult to imagine how protest would even work without some amount of individual right to political expression, but that's an operational need to actually have the collective right in place. Similar standards for the press and search and seizure or cruel and unusual punishment. I view the right to privacy in the same way, where it's hard to imagine how you can meaningfully have a free press or protection from search and seizure or even due process without some acknowledged guard-rails around making sure government actions have a compelling public interest. I just don't see something analogous with firearms.

With firearms it actually is easier to imagine much less scope for an individual right because of the "well-regulated militia" clause.

> I’m willing to entertain the view that our whole incorporation doctrine is non-sensical, but that cuts more broadly than I think most gun control advocates would like to go. Moreover, the notion that the 14th amendment was meant to apply the second amendment to states is far better supported than the incorporation of the first amendment.

It is a awkward kludge to be sure. But at the time the second amendment was more-or-less an after-thought because of how the structure of the military evolved and the way the Civil War put a lot of constitutional "questions" to rest about how far the states' rights go. I really just don't think they imagined people in the future would extend the argument beyond all reason to assert that any person should have access to any level of firepower at their whim without any public interest in curtailing it. That's plainly absurd and the only reason we even accept it today is because big swathes of the country are in the grip of some crime-wave paranoia mingled with Red Dawn fantasies being stoked by the media.

And like I mentioned with the right to protest, we still do put up some guardrails around it in the name of public safety despite the general understanding of the right, which is why I'm generally against complete bans of firearms. But I think our understanding of what that 2nd amendment right actually means needs to be anchored to some idea of what these things are for. What is their purpose and what value do they provide to civil society or for enabling people to freely pursue life, liberty, and happiness? From that standpoint I can see wanting to permit access to tools for reasonable self-defense or sport/hunting uses. But you don't really need most of the tacticool gear that people worry about for that. I'm not even sure most people even really need a handgun for that. Right now, it seems like what the most vocal 2nd amendment advocacy organizations think they're for is to menace government officials and engage in acts of terrorism and insurrection. I do not believe this is a view compatible with having a civilized country or a functioning government.

[nradov]

You are stating legal misinformation. There is an individual right to own guns in the US Constitution. This was settled in District of Columbia v. Heller.

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-cour...

Technically many of us are considered members of the Federal militia, although in practice that statute is effectively moot.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/sub...