First, my apologies for taking so long to get back on this. Many things going on, and my time seems to be even more limited as I grow older. But enough of my whining...
If you read the very first paragraph of the dissent in Heller, you will see that all justices agreed that the second amendment detailed in individual right.
Your Story quote left out the section immediately above that:
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
Damn inconvenient, I know. He is stating - clearly - that the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the citizens. Not militia - citizens. With that in mind, how can you still say that he didn't believe the second amendment was an individual right? Yes, he discusses the importance of militias in keeping tyrants form usurping power, but there is nothing in his writings that ties the second amendment to militia members only.
As for your request to show where they said it was clearly disconnected form the militia - if the above doesn't satisfy you (which I am beginning to think is impossible), I will admit defeat if you show any documents from the above writers that clearly state that the second amendment ONLY applies to militia members. That would indeed make it a collective right, and dependent upon militia membership.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read