I’m intrigued by this quote from Saul Cornell:
The arms bearing provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution does not frame the right as an individual right. If it did it would not pair it with the typical 18th century attack on standing armies and an affirmation of civilian control of the military. The entire provision is clearly about a militia based right.
The 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution states the following:
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.
Can someone explain to me how this can be interpreted as anything other than an individual right when it specifically says “the people have the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state?”
Of course, later, in 1790, we shorted that to:
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
Sorry, but the collective rights interpretation is looking more flimsy by the day.
