It Depends Upon What the Meaning of the Word 'People' Is

Generations of Supreme Court and academic opinion held that the amendment did not confer on individuals a right “to keep and bear Arms” but, rather, referred only to the privileges belonging to state militias. [More]

First off, no one but an ignoramus would argue the right is conferred.

Still, I  wonder how he'd explain what William Rawle. whose "View of the Constitution” was the standard Constitutional law text at leading universities in the early 19th Century, meant when he asserted:

“No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under a general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any pursuit of an inordinate power either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

And then he could produce the decision contradicting the 1856 Supreme Court, which noted that if they were recognized as citizens, blacks would be able "to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

I wonder if Toobin would like to try the test ACLU failed.

[Via Michael G]