I am under the impression that if they had intended for the Second Amendment to limit the US from infringing on the RKBA of foreigners on our soil, then they would have used the term "person" instead of "the people". I seem to recall reading in the congressional record that the Fifth Amendment says "no person shall" because it was intended to apply to foreigners ... I believe it was visiting royalty that was specifically mentioned. And what is that SCOTUS case that people hold up to support the idea that "the people" means the same thing in every instance? I think that case says something about this.
Hugh,
The term "the people" and "a person" are simply plural and singular forms of the same term and distinguishable from "citizen". The "people" is more inclusive. I believe the test is something on the order of having a significant attachment to the community and living within U.S. territory. Thus even illegal aliens living within these United States are part of "the people" while those individuals who are just visiting from other nations are not. Some of our more creative justices, Justice Breyer for instance, have argued that "the people" include all those under our jurisdiction which would include such broad classes of people as prisoners of war captured and held in foreign lands, but I do not understand this to be the prevailing view of the court.
Mr. Madison wrote to Mr. Jefferson in October of 1788 concerning the addition of a bill of rights to the United States Constitution.
My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment, for any other reason than that it is anxiously desired by others. . . . I have not viewed it in an important light — 1. because I conceive that in a certain degree, though not in the extent argued by Mr. Wilson, the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted. 2. because there is great reason to fear that a positive declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude. ...
Federal powers are specifically enumerated, the federal Constitution is a limited grant of power, while the various state constitutions are a general grant of power. Madison did not perceive a need for a federal bill of rights as the federal government, unlike the states, lacked any power to regulate or infringe our rights. However, the states governments, possessing a general grant of power, needed to be restrained by a bill of rights such as that adopted by Virginia in June of 1776.
Anti-federalists, including such notable people as Patrick Henry, opposed the ratification of the federal Constitution and the question was long in doubt in more then half the states. In the end, a number of states agreed to ratification if a bill of rights was to be included. This was the Massachusetts compromise and these states provided instructions as to what they wanted included in a federal bill of rights.
The point is only this, that the federal bill of rights did not create our rights, it only codified our rights within the federal Constitution. We do not have the right to the liberty of speech because of the first Amendment, the first Amendment exists because we have a natural or unalienable right to free speech and many states refused to ratify the Constitution without the promise of a bill of rights. We possessed these unalienable rights, including the right to self defense, before there existed any American citizens, before there was a United States with a federal Constitution.
I can understand, especially in this time of massive illegal immigration, how some might desire to limit our unalienable rights to only those who are citizens, but I can not agree with such a position. If we hold our right to be a product of a document, even our Constitution, instead of a natural possession of all men, then our rights become malleable and some will seek to deny us our right, to practice a tyranny over our lives. Those who would deny people who are not citizens the right to arms are necessarily also denying that the right to arms is a natural or unalienable right. Those in the gun-control faction would certainly agree with that position. I will not.
Best Regards,
Richard