We are all quite familiar with the two main camps of 2nd Amendment interpretation. At this point, neither needs formal introduction or deep explanation.

Simply put there is the individual rights model and the state's right model. The only thing both agree on is that the 2nd Amendment prohibits federal action against a protected party . . .

Who that protected party is, . . . that's the big question.

Instead of heaping mounds of quotes and court opinions in support of a position, I want to begin with the basic premise of the state's right position and examine what the simple, demonstratable effects are of it.

Everyone is familiar with the Miller case but that case really doesn't pick a side (well it does but ya gotta dig a little ). The lower federal circuit decisions immediately following Miller is where the state's right theory is fleshed out. A prototypical explanation is found in U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942):

• "It is abundantly clear . . .that this [2nd] amendment, . . . was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power."

I must admit, that is very succinct and unambiguous. Here is what I want to explore though:

What can we make of Tot's directive if NOTHING exists in the state or federal judicial record demonstrating this theory in action? If the 2nd Amendment's sole action is to bar the door to federal interference with a state's militia then the judicial record must be replete with instances of states citing the 2nd and defeating federal demands of preemption and supremacy over their militia!

There have been many cases in the federal courts with four reaching the Supreme Court that deal with who can control the state militia. Beginning 187 years ago SCOTUS has held federal preemption over state militia law as constitutional and these cases but one were decided without any mention of the 2nd Amendment. (That single case, Houston v. Moore stated that the 2nd couldn't, "be thought to have any important bearing on this point.")

It seems to me, the entire "state's right" theory was created for just one purpose:

To diminish if not extinguish the individual right to arms interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in the courts of the United States.

From what I've seen it has no other orbit of influence in United States jurisprudence!

Can anyone demonstrate real examples of any state enjoying any benefit of the claimed "state's right" ambit of the 2nd Amendment? It seems incomprehensible to me how this logical fallacy could persist for so long being completely invisible in its claimed sphere of action.

--------------------

• The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights.
  
  UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO. 350 U.S. 222 (1956)