According to Mr. Uviller, the Second Amendment protects only a right of states to have militias, not a right of individuals to have arms. But for this interpretation to make sense, the "right of the people" referred to in the Second Amendment would have to be somehow different from the rights of people referred to in the First, Fourth, Ninth and 10th Amendments, none of which is interpreted as applying to states. In fact, the 10th Amendment specifically distinguishes between "the people" and "the states."

Nor is Mr. Uviller correct regarding the Supreme Court case law. In what appears to be a reference to United States v. Miller, he misstates that case's point. Miller explicitly distinguished between the right to keep and bear arms, which it ascribed to individuals, and the purpose of the right, which is to maintain an armed citizenry.

So did the Tennessee case of Aymette v. State, which Miller cites. The Supreme Court has never said that the Second Amendment protects only a right of the states.

That is why the law review literature is virtually unanimous in concluding that the "right of the people" protected by the Second Amendment is an individual right, not a right of states to have militias.
