In other words people did not have individual right to bear arms as the states could take it away. Which is perfectly reasonable in this context as a state could decide to limit some weapons to it’s specific state militia, or have some other laws that provided for mutual defense while limiting weapon ownership.
Over time the supreme court has begun applying the bill of rights to states as well in a process known as Incorporation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...
I am not saying it’s unjustified, just new.
Most evidence points to the fact that the second amendment was viewed from inception as an individual right. Especially if you look at the state proposals for the second amendment, which allow exceptions for things like individual circumstances (e.g. people who had participated in a rebellion).
McDonald said nothing new, or what wasn’t already obvious.
What that is and why it’s there is debatable. But, plenty of evidence exists that many states did not want this to be unlimited, the language was not direct, and the implementation gave states the option to limit things. That is plenty of room for debate, and in fact this topic has seen plenty of them over time.
The tenth amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Is not about individual freedom, it’s about what freedom the states have and the limitation on the federal government.
It was established when the Bill of Rights was ratified. The Supreme Court never held that there was no individual right to bear arms.
>There is no amendment saying either people have an individual right to possess a firearm, nor an individual right to have an abortion. These are inferences.
I'd argue it is the only reasonable interpretation. Interpreting "people" as some sort of collective right is absurd in view of the other uses of "right of the people" in the Bill of Rights, such as the first amendment. Nobody would argue the "right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is limited to some collective right. Or the 4th amendment, certainly, you wouldn't say that is a collective right. And the 10th literally distinguishes between the states and the people.
Though I don't agree with it, there is a decent argument that it's an individual right defined in scope in relation to a well-regulated militia. United States v. Miller, the only case before Heller that really discussed the second amendment, seems to take this view. Short barrel Shotgun bans were okay because it wasn't related to a well-regulated milia. But that doesn't imply you have no right to bear arms that are relevant to a milia like handguns and battle rifles.