I agree with Phil.
Can anyone explain to me the clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”. If that phrase has nothing to do with the right to bear arms, why did the framers of the constitution write it and include it in the amendment. Why didn’t they just say the right to bear arms was “self evident” and omit any reference to militias?
IMO, the reference to militia provides a highly important (in framer's view) basis/context for the right to own guns. Important as it was, the militia clause was not necessarily the exclusive basis for that right.
IMO, the framers understood the right to bear weapons was not absolute. The non-absolute character of the right was also incorporated into the militia clause in the phrase "well regulated militia." If the right to own a gun was totally without encumbrance, then even militia could not be regulated. For example you will never see a reference to a well regulated press, or well regulated religious practice. This despite the fact that even in those two example there are some degree of regulations that do pertain.
So, I think the framers are saying... yes, the citizens have a right to bear arms... here is a clear example of the need for that right.... and even within that example we acknowledge that the "right" is not without it's limits.
And ultimately, IMO that SCOUS ruling goes pretty much along that same line.... saying yes there is a right... but also the right is not entirely free of all restraint.
