(2008)

which answers the question of what Scalia thought the founders meant and what Scalia thought was permitted under the English Bill of Rights (1689).

It doesn't address what the founders actually thought, nor how they'd respond to modern weapons in the hands of mass shooters.

Volley guns, organ guns and early implementations like the Puckle gun long predate the founding of the US. The ribauldequin was what...14th century? Also they were certainly aware of early "artillery" weapons firing hundreds of arrows at once invented centuries earlier in China & Korea. In fact, European armies started embracing the use of rockets as early as the 1780s.

These were educated men. They had an idea about how technology could improve and, more specifically, that technological development would first be applied to war.

Well aware of Heller. Just as OP said SCOTUS went in the wrong direction for 1A, I similarly believe the Heller decision was incorrect.

I’m not trying to start an argument on the legitimacy or lack thereof of decisions; I’m pointing out that if you want to play the originalist game, there are plenty of other examples that you may not like.

But if you play that originalist game with the second amendment, you still have to contend with the other clause: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,”

Which is clearly a dependent clause of the subject, “A well regulated militia.” Every other amendment in the bill of rights follows a similar structure.

America had no standing army, and many of the founders did not want one. Hence, the need for a militia.

The second part isn’t a dependent clause, just as a matter of grammar. The second amendment doesn’t say: “within a well organized militia, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It’s a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The first explains the purpose, the second gives the rule. So you can certainly argue that the rule must be considered in the context of the purpose.

But that still doesn’t get you where you’re going. Because personal firearms ownership certainly facilitates raising a militia if you need one.

> Which is clearly a dependent clause of the subject, “A well regulated militia.” Every other amendment in the bill of rights follows a similar structure.

I wonder if that means the lack in the US of official citizen militias dependent on private firearm ownership could be considered unconstitutional.

IIRC, the National Guard is reckoned to be the militia, but that seems a little like BS to me. It seems pretty much to be a de-facto component of the federal military, complete with rotations to fight foreign wars, etc.