The earlier consensus, the law professors said in interviews, reflected received wisdom and political preferences rather than a serious consideration of the amendment’s text, history and place in the structure of the Constitution. “The standard liberal position,” Professor Levinson said, “is that the Second Amendment is basically just read out of the Constitution.”It seems that while we are expected to respect the law, they law is often made up by people. What this means is that the law isn't perfect and certainly questionable by people who may differ on the interpretation of said laws. Of course to be sure I believe in the idea of rule of thumb, that is on a given law there are certain observances that are to be observed.
The Second Amendment says, “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.” (Some transcriptions of the amendment omit the last comma.)
If only as a matter of consistency, Professor Levinson continued, liberals who favor expansive interpretations of other amendments in the Bill of Rights, like those protecting free speech and the rights of criminal defendants, should also embrace a broad reading of the Second Amendment. And just as the First Amendment’s protection of the right to free speech is not absolute, the professors say, the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms may be limited by the government, though only for good reason.
The individual rights view is far from universally accepted. “The overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion supports the near-unanimous view of the federal courts that the constitutional right to be armed is linked to an organized militia,” said Dennis A. Henigan, director of the legal action project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “The exceptions attract attention precisely because they are so rare and unexpected.”
Let's not forget that America largely observes a common law system. Some states might be more codified although that's a matter of say what sphere of influence the state fell under before they became a state. Like Louisiana, I understand that they have some form of Napoleonic code in that state.
In any case I would like to know how DC v. Heller might stand up during an Obama Presidency. Might citizen have a somewhat unencumbered right to own and bear a weapon in the privacy on their own property?