Do we (as individuals) REALLY have the right to bear arms? Well, not according to a 2002 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Something I discovered today.. In 2002 it was ruled by the ninth circuit of appeals that the second amendment gives no civilian the “right” to bear arms and that (when written) it was referring to state militias.

Source:


Silveira v Lockyer. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, December 05, 2002. Case 01-15098. Before: Reinhardt, Magill, and Fisher, Circuit Judges.
[link to caselaw.findlaw.com]

“In any event, it is clear that the drafters believed the militia that provides the best security for a free state to be the permanent state militia,

"not some amorphous body of the people as a whole, or whatever random and informal collection of armed individuals may from time to time appear on the scene for one purpose or another. ...

"The debates of the founding era demonstrate that the second of the first ten amendments to the Constitution was included in order to preserve the efficacy of the state militias for the people's defense -- not to ensure an individual right to possess weapons. Specifically, the amendment was enacted to guarantee that the people would be able to maintain an effective state fighting force -- that they would have the right to bear arms in the service of the state.”

-------

So, did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals intend this ruling to be a clarification of the true purpose of the 2nd amendment? I would love to discuss this further with those educated in the subject matter.