Thomas Jefferson said "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed".
Jefferson was saying that there are two rules that help us decide the limits of federal jurisdiction ... sometimes people take this second rule out of context and end up turning it against the first rule, so please allow me to provide a bit more of Jefferson's quote:
"It may be impracticable to lay down any general formula of words which shall decide at once, and with precision, in every case, this limit of jurisdiction. But there are two canons which will guide us safely in most of the cases.
1st. The capital and leading object of the constitution was to leave with the States all authorities which respected their own citizens only, and to transfer to the United States those which respected citizens of foreign or other States: to make us several as to ourselves, but one as to all others ... 2d. On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
The People as you said is clearly the people of the US, or persons. How could it be a collective right if the framers were individualists?
It seems to me that the Framers were federalists and antifederalists, and the antifederalists were States' righters ... I don't know why people think the framers were libertarians who didn't believe in collective rights ... I think they framed a system which is founded upon collective rights.
The thing is, if we construe the Second Amendment to only regard a personal right and not a collective right, then that is what we had under King George ... Virginians were once British Subjects, with British Troops here to dominate us ... we had our personal arms, but we did not have a free State ... we declared that a standing army in times of peace was a danger to liberty ... I suppose libertarians read this as a declaration that a standing army endangers our personal liberty, but I think it primarily regards the political liberty of the State ... as defined in Webster's 1828 Dictionary:
LIB''ERTY, n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.]
...
4. Political liberty, is sometimes used as synonymous with civil liberty. But it more properly designates the liberty of a nation, the freedom of a nation or state from all unjust abridgment of its rights and independence by another nation. Hence we often speak of the political liberties of Europe, or the nations of Europe.
Virginia declared that a standing army is a danger to liberty, and that the proper/safe/natural defense of a free State is militia consisting of the people of that State. Then in the 1860's Virginia voted against the 14th Amendment and was placed under military rule, the very thing that the Second Amendment is intended to guard against ... Virginians had our personal arms, but we did not have a free State ... if we construe the Second Amendment so that it only regards the personal RKBA, then we seem to miss the primary intent.
Urriquez-Verdugo v. US, 1992 or 1993, spoke extensively about "the people" as individuals.
Yes, thanks, that's the case I was thinking of ... what I see is:
"The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution, and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people" refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
I agree that this is generally true ... so if the Second Amendment said that no person shall have his RKBA infringed it would apply to foreigners visiting here, but since it says that the people shall not have their rkba infringed it does not apply to foreigners visiting here ... but I don't see this as an assertion that the US Constitution always uses the term "the people" to refer to individuals and never as a collective or State. And the assertion seems untenable to me.