On the issue of what the 2nd Amendment means, I think it's interesting to look at how it changed prior to final ratification. From 7 Jun 1789 thru 15 Dec 1789 there were 7 versions of the 2nd A. The one constenent in all of these versions is the words "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is in every single one of them. The Militia part was the changed part.in its wording/meaning and there was the addition of a religous exemption that was dropped all togeather in it finale version.
In 2nd A cases, the Power of the SCOTUS and Federal Judges is not in their authority to rule on constitutional matters of law IMO, it's in their authority to refuse to hear a challenge. It's in that entitlement to say "NO", that is such an amazing use of raw judicial power. Because no citizen has the authority under the Constitution to say "NO" to a unconstitutional law without penalty. In fact, no citizen is expected to refuse to follow a unconstitution law nor is a Court required to review a law unless a challenge is made by someone, with what the court considers to have standing. Thus, the court can simply say that a citizen lacks standing (say NO) to even hearing the challenge. It amazes me because according to the BAR Association in Rule 2.6 "(A) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law". However, the Judge gets to decide if they have a "Legal Interest" and therby if they have a "right to be heard according to law". Now if someone is challenging a 2nd Amendment law as Unconstitutional because it is an infringment on their right, why wouldn't that in itself be Standing? Additionally in the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256) you find this statement from the SCOTUS:
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
For 30 years the "Distric of Criminals" violated the constitutional rights of Americans. Question: was anyone thrown in jail or prosecuted for this violation of civil rights for the 600,000 residents? Nope. In that same Jurisprudence it states that: "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it."
Laws are a matter of trust IMO. I fail to understand how a Federal law that says "this thing" is legal and a State law can say that "this thing" is illegal at the same time or vice versa. The two cannot both be constitutional at the same time when talking about a constitutional right. This is where trust falls apart, like I said IMO.
