William Rawle, in 1825 revised 1829, wrote in his 'A View of the Constitution', that the individual right (rkba) clause was a 'corollary' to the well regulated militia clause (wrm). A corollary is generally a derivation from a higher rule or principle.
What Rawle said in 1825: The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Scalia in Heller, and most all pro gun undereducated 2ndA sycophants, subscribed and twisted this into Rawle supporting the individual rkba interpretation! Using their usual claptrap of specious and fractured reasoning, they created a concoction song and dance to wiggle around Wm Rawle's 2ndA views.
By 1825 the dichotomy between americans who supported the militia view & those the independent view had blossomed. The latter were at first considered scofflaws to the militia act of 1792, but, as today, the dark side gained strength as the well regulated militia became less well regulated.
Here is Rawles' 'first half' of his 1825 view of the 2nd article/amendment. The first half is what I call the domestic half, there is a second half, the foreign half. Observe how often he mentions a militia, underlining mine. His only mention of rkba is as a corollary to the wrm:
In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary
to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although
in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet,
while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force
can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to
repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace
of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A
disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to
its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as
will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and
useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible
interest.
The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed
In a Fordham Law Review article that was cited in Justice Breyer’s Heller
dissent, {Saul} Cornell claims that Rawle “viewed the right to bear arms as inextricably
linked to the militia.”
I should note that Rawle was off when he wrote in 'View' that states which wanted to secede from the union, could. Nonetheless each topic should be judged along with other notable writers, to corroborate.
Rawle's second half on the 2nd amendment - the 'foreign half'. The 'prohibition' he refersr to is rkba not being infringed:
The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of
construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such
a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state
legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt
it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
In most of the countries of Europe, this right does not seem to be denied,
although it is allowed more or less sparingly, according to circumstances. In
England, a country which boasts so much of its freedom, the right was secured to
protestant subjects only, on the revolution of 1688; and it is cautiously described
to be that of bearing arms for their defence, “suitable to their conditions, and as
allowed by law.” An arbitrary code for the preservation of game in that country
has long disgraced them. A very small proportion of the people being permitted
to kill it, though for their own subsistence; a gun or other instrument, used for
that purpose by an unqualified person, may be seized and forfeited. Blackstone,
in whom we regret that we cannot always trace the expanded principles of rational
liberty, observes however, on this subject, that the prevention of popular
insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the people, is oftener
meant than avowed, by the makers of forest and game laws.
This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused to the
disturbance of the public peace.
An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an
indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual,
attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make
an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety
of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonment.
Note that by 1825 the english game laws Rawle refers to had been largely resolved, gun confiscation was limited to the early 1700's and subsequent incidents were rare. 'Disarm the people' should be construed as disarming the citizen militia, not taking away musquettes from ordinary citizenry, something any congress then would never have considered to begin with.
= new reply since forum marked as read
