Ragabash...where should I begin. First off, Slate is using case law that does not apply to the question of whether the 2nd amendment is to the individual right or not. The case they refer to is fairly well known and is actually referring to a challenge to the then-five-year-old National Firearms Act requiring REGISTRATION of said "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length". The entire point of that case was whether or not the firearm needed to be registered with the federal government or not. NOT whether firearms are legal to own - that was never in question.

You mention John Ashcroft's letter. Well, let's bring him on and let him have his say. Ashcroft wrote another letter to the NRA (published in the July issue of First Freedom) and mentioned case law and other legal precedents in which the courts actually DID find that the Second Amendment is applicable to the individual and not the "collective". Specifically:

Logan v United States, 144 U.S. 263, 276 (1892)
Miller v Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1893)
Robertson v Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281-82 (1897)
Maxwell v Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 597 (1900)

Want more? Ashcroft goes on. William van Alstyne, The Second Amendment and the Personal Right To Arms, 34 Duke L.J. 1236 (1994), Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, 101 Yale L.J. 1193 (1992), Sanford Levinson, The Embarassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L.J. 637 (1989), and Don Kates, Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 Mich. L. Rev 204.

Hmm. But those are all interpretations of the document, without the original flavor. So let us nail the coffin closed and examine the words of the original writers once more. George Mason: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except a few public officers...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." Said at the 1788 Constitution Ratification Convention. Sure doesn't say much about the right only applying to the still rather nebulously-defined "states". Also go study the Federalist Papers. Federalist 46 eliminates the idea the the "militia" are the state- and federally-controlled organizations, the "militia" is given as a preferable alternative to the "standing army" - specifically being AGAINST the idea of Federal troops!

Federalist 29 is quite prophetic, and deserves a quote from Alexander Hamilton here: The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone...

The Slate goes on to mention that the idea of the Second Amendment being interpreted as belonging to the individual, and the fact that a majority of the people believe such, merely makes the people victims of a hoax and "false consciousness". And then they go on to contradict themselves, and say that people believe the the right has come and gone, and that it's time for the courts to catch up with "public opinion" and ban the guns. According to you, Slate, you just said public opinion is really that firearms are to be owned by the people! You can't have Schroedinger's Population, believing two different things at the same time that fundamentally cancel each other out. But, let's for the sake of argument, say that you're right and that all the previous quotes and commentary is pure malarkey. That the Second Amendment really does not apply to the individual.

That means the rest do not as well. So you don't have a right against the censure of free speech by the government, only the states do. You don't have a right to face your accuser in court, and your home may be The ban on slavery would not apply to you - a tenth of this nation, or more, would still be in chains. You yourself would never see a jury trial, no matter what you did. Why, the Ninth Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - would, along with the Tenth Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. - only apply to the state governments, making you little more than serfs of an elected government. You would not even have the RIGHT TO VOTE - which makes the government not quite so elected! Can you truly believe that any part of the Bill Of Rights is NOT a shield for the individual against the tyranny of the empowered, both just and evil?