The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I have read D.C. v. Heller, 554 US 570 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 742 (2010) multiple times, and believe the historical translations by Justices Scalia, Alito, and Breyer of the clauses "well regulated militia" and "keep and bear arms" to be nothing short of brilliant. However, many historical scholars fundamentally disagree.
In my constitutional law class, we discussed the disagreement in historical translation stemming anywhere from the Articles of Confederation's purpose of a state-provided military to the need of a centralized "militia", which was a factor in delegating such powers to a central government, but also the widespread keeping of fire arms of the time. What I am trying to get at is how historians have analyzed to the contrary such a right that would not so much provide the widespread claim to firearm ownership.
Essentially, what circumstances of the era and intent of the constitutional framers could point to a different translation of the second amendment?
Thanks for your time. You guys are awesome.
Note of clarification for the mods: Though the question surrounds the recent SC decisions above, I am specifically asking about contrary evidence of developmental circumstances surrounding the framing of the constitution and the bill of rights, thereby meeting your time frame requirement.
So in your ConLaw class, the key factor that should have been focused on was Incorporation, which is probably the most important factor in understanding 20th Century jurisprudence on the Bill of Rights, generally, as well as how those rights related to the government and the individual prior, that is to say, when written. I wrote this old answer some time ago, but it should hopefully address your question for the most part, and I'd be happy to answer any follow ups if possible.