Scalia, like many assign the right of keeping arms to the people and THAT is the wrong interpretation. The correct interpretation is that people have a right to a well regulated militia who keeps and bear arms.

My evidence? The fact that “well regulated militia” is even included into the sentence. Had those three words NOT been included in the 2A, I would agree with you Greger. If the Founders truly wanted individuals to bear arms, there would be no need to mention “well regulated militias.” But there is.

Could the 2A have been written better and more clear? Absolutely! smile

I will also add that Scalia knew that he was being intellectually dishonest in that opinion.

Contrarian, extraordinaire