[Political Junkie Too]

If a state wishes for arms to be kept at home, fine. If they want the arms kept in an armory, fine also.

How does that contrast with the 2nd amendment phrase "the right of the people to keep" arms?

If "people" doesn't mean individual people, but a collective militia, does "keep" not really mean keep at home with the person? I get worried when I'm told that the plain language doesn't mean what it plainly says.

I interpret the right of the people to keep arms to mean that individual people have the right to own (and keep) arms with themselves. I do not interpret it to mean that they must be locked away in an armory only to be gotten by somebody else' permission. That doesn't sound like "keeping" to me.

-PJ

[robertpaulsen]

"How does that contrast with the 2nd amendment phrase "the right of the people to keep" arms?"

The second amendment protects this right from federal infringement only. The states are free to infringe, guided only by their state constitution. In Illinois, cities are allowed to actually prohinit the ownership of guns within city limits. Chicago, Wilmette, Morton Grove -- all prohibit handguns.