<P> If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(but) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia...A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice . It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it . To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well - regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss...Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the People at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year . </P> <P> Justice Scalia, writing for the Court in Heller: "In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga . 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the' natural right of self - defence' and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly . Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right": </P> <P> Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed ." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well - regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State . Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel - crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right . </P> <P> Justice Stevens in dissent: </P>

When did the interpretation of the second amendment change