Stepping on “Bench Memos” turf a little here, but here’s an interesting insight from a reader on Robert’s Second Amendment posting:
Mr. VerBruggen mentioned “Supreme Court precedent.”
I believe that, if one carefully studies Miller, one must come to the conclusion that the case itself is a vindication of the “individual right” school-of-thought.
Messrs. Miller and Layton challenged the statute as individuals (rather than as part of the state militia), and cited their (pre-existing*) rights protected by the Second Amendment. When SCOTUS issued the writ of certiorari, it de facto recognized that Miller and Layton had standing as individuals before that court. Had SCOTUS denied certiorari and suggested that the Oklahoma State Militia challenge the law, it would’ve been indicative that it thought the right to be merely a “collective” right–but it didn’t do that. Ergo, logical jurists must conclude that the right to arms is, indeed, an individual right.
* U.S. v. Cruikshank