Yes. The text of the 2nd amendment is contested and several states passed different punctuation, which changes the meaning.
The most favorable version for individual gun ownership reads:
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.
The placement of the comma there makes the well regulated militia part an introductory clause, which explains the purpose of the second part protecting individual gun ownership.
That combined with the historical context that anyone called into miltia service was expected to provide their own gun is the justification for individual gun ownership being a protected right.
The more common text passed by congress is more ambiguous because it introduces an explanatory clause as part of the introductory clause, but you can still read it that way, which the supreme court currently has.
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.
Yes. The text of the 2nd amendment is contested and several states passed different punctuation, which changes the meaning.
The most favorable version for individual gun ownership reads:
The placement of the comma there makes the well regulated militia part an introductory clause, which explains the purpose of the second part protecting individual gun ownership.
That combined with the historical context that anyone called into miltia service was expected to provide their own gun is the justification for individual gun ownership being a protected right.
The more common text passed by congress is more ambiguous because it introduces an explanatory clause as part of the introductory clause, but you can still read it that way, which the supreme court currently has.