Gun Control & RKBA

tortoise: .. those who tried to use the "British scholars" paper to discredit Heller did themselves an unintentional harm. Here is an excerpt taken from a recent post that represents the scholarly dissent to Heller, concerning collective versus individual rights:

Well you've certainly twisted 180 degrees what the british scholars actually wrote, when you emboldened your 'individual right' argument. How can the thought be right before your very eyes & yet you misconstrue it so badly? The 'individual right' was explained as being an individual right to bear arms in a militia:

tortoise excerpted british scholars: In {DC} v. Heller (2008), the {US Supreme} Court examined the English Declaration of Rights of 1689, correctly finding that the right to “have arms” in Article VII is the basis of the right enshrined in the Second Amendment.
The Court also correctly recognized that the Second Amendment right to bear arms was an individual right to have and use arms for “self preservation and defense” as in its English predecessor.
However, contrary to discredited scholarship upon which Heller relied, the right to “have arms” embodied in the English Declaration of Rights did not intend to protect an individual’s right to possess, own, or use arms for private purposes such as to defend a home against burglars (what, in modern times, we mean when we use the term “self-defense”). Rather, it referred to a right to possess arms in defense of the realm. Accordingly, the right to own or use arms for private purposes is not a right deeply rooted in our nation’s tradition..

tortoise: The theme throughout this is that the people have the right to keep and bear arms both as part of a militia, and for hunting, personal defense, and protection against oppression. This is not a collective right.

If it's not a collective right, why did 80% of the states you cite claim it as a militia/collective right?
Tortoise then goes on to cite madison's brigade website, which clearly pegs original state views circa 1776 - 1790, as either being for a collective right only {8} or a lesser few {2, Vermont, Pennsy} for being a militia-centric right, but none solely for an individual right. Even pennsylvania included militia, as anti-militia quaker Wm Penn had been:

Eight of the original states enacted their own bills of rights prior to the adoption of US Constitution. The following states included an arms-rights provision in their state constitutions:

VIRGINIA (June 12, 1776) That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

DELAWARE (Sep 11, 1776) That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.

PENNSYLVANIA (Sep 28, 1776) That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;

MARYLAND Nov11, 1776) That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.

NORTH CAROLINA Dec18, 1776) that the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under the strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

VERMONT July 8, 1777 That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State

MASSACHUSETTS Oct25, 1780) The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.

NEW HAMPSHIRE June 2, 1784) A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.

NEW YORK CONVENTION July 7,1788) That the militia should always be kept well organized, armed and disciplined, and include, according to past usages of the states, all the men capable of bearing arms, and that no regulations tending to render the general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, of distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community, ought to be made.

RHODE ISLAND RATIFICATION CONVENTION May 29, 1790) That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.