https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/john-paul-...
“ Colonial history contains many examples of firearm regulations in urban areas that imposed obstacles to their use for protection of the home. Boston, Philadelphia, and New York—the three largest cities in America at that time—all imposed restrictions on the firing of guns in the city limits. Boston enacted a law in 1746 prohibiting the “discharge” of any gun or pistol that was later revived in 1778; ”
“ Boston’s gunpowder law imposed a 10-pound fine on any person who took any loaded firearm into any dwelling house or barn within the town. Most, if not all, of those regulations would violate the Second Amendment as it was construed in the 5–4 decision that Justice Antonin Scalia ”
During colonial times we did not have a large standing army and relied on state militias.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-congress-off...
None of the Bill of Rights applied to the states until the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, after which it was held to be "incorporated to the states". State and local laws from the colonial period are not relevant.
During the same period, several states had established churches, but I see no one arguing that the First Amendment still permits that.
Is it possible that he did and you’re missing something?
> There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns. See also: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm.
If you look at what the Framers contemporaneously wrote about guns and the militia, it’s almost impossible to deny that the purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that able-bodied men would have access to fire arms in order to form militias, to not only combat foreign enemies but potentially domestic ones. Any sort of gun control that undermines that purpose cannot be squared with the second amendment, and we are slowly but surely rediscovering that understanding.