Very creative. And all these years I thought that it referred to one of my unalienable rights along with "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Please tell me what "liberty" was being referred to by our Founders in the Declaration of Independence? Is there no element of tyranny practiced by the monarchy and from which we are protected by the Bill of Rights?
Please explain why the Ninth Circus claims that the Second Amendment is a "collective right"? Using your interpretation of the necessity for a separate individual right to keep and bear arms for each state, why was it necessary for the Ninth to declare the Second Amendment to not protect an individual right?
What possible purpose can be served by an individual right as expressed in the Second Amendment? You would seem to be stating that it has no effect whatever. If a state has an RKBA, then its citizens have an individual right. If a state does not have an RKBA, then the citizens of that state do not have an individual right.
Why did our Founders bother?
If free speech were an unanienable, God-given right, then it couldn't be infringed or taken away. Your right to free speech is defined by the laws of society, as you well know. Or do you think you have a God-given, unalienable right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, spread malicious slander about a private individual, utter fighting words, or yell profanities in front of children? What, you call that "liberty"?
"Please explain why the Ninth Circus claims that the Second Amendment is a "collective right"?"
Sure, if you promise to tell me why the Fifth Circuit, in U.S. v Emerson, claimed the Second Amendment is an "individual right".
The Ninth Circuit stated, "Because the Second Amendment does not confer (not "protect" as you claim) an individual right to own or possess arms, we affirm the dismissal of all claims brought pursuant to that constitutional provision." Do you disagree? Do you think the second Amendment "confers an individual right"? Is that where we get our "right"?
That's the problem. The defendants were looking for protection where none was to be had. The protection of their rights is found in their own state constitution, which, in this case, is stone-cold silent.
"If a state has an RKBA, then its citizens have an individual right. If a state does not have an RKBA, then the citizens of that state do not have an individual right."
I don't like the phrasing of that. Let's try this. You have a right to keep and bear arms. It's a fundamental right. Now, does the state in which you live protect that right or is it silent?
If your state constitution protects that right, then the state supreme court interpretation of the wording describes the limits of your rights. These interpretations are reflected in your state laws.
If, on the other hand, your state constitution is silent on the right to keep and bear arms (as it is in California and five other states), then your right is not protected. Your "right" is simply the arbitrary laws passed by the state legislature which, hopefully, reflect the will of the majority of the citizens of your state.
Don't look to the Second amendment of the U.S. Constitution for your protection. I'm very concerned about the way the Ninth read it (even though it had nothing to do with the case*).
Basically, they said, "Congress cannot ban arms because the people need them to form a militia to protect their state. And since the defendants weren't forming a militia to protect their state, we can ban their guns." Essentially ruling on a "collective right".
* SILVEIRA v. LOCKYER was not the right case to challenge the RKBA, and it definitely was not the right federal court to challenge it in. It was a disaster. It gave Judge Reinhardt the forum he was looking for to rebut the Fifth Circuit ruling in U.S. v Emerson. His rambling opinion was a direct assault on the opinion in Emerson (he mentions it often).