That's not just a reinterpretation, that is a complete rewriting of foundational rights theory -- and not just for the right to arms.
The Court has
always held that original, fundamental rights emanate and exist on a plane separate and distinct from the Constitution. IOW, the Constitution is not the source of our rights. That you think that a simple reinterpretation of the "awkward phrasing" of the 2nd will result in a legal circumstance where the right to arms of the citizen will fall under the ambit of Congress is just leftist fanciful fantasy. (That seems to really be a recurring theme on this board)
From the very beginning rights were considered pre-existing the Constitution; possessed by the people before the Constitution was established and before any governmental powers were delegated. Since our rights are retained, no aspect of then has ever been conferred to the care and control of government, they are exceptions, subtractions of powers NEVER GRANTED:
"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . ." VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)
"The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, . . ." -- ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1867)
The right there specified is that of bearing arms for a lawful purpose. This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed;. . . " -- U S v. CRUIKSHANK 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted." -- BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights. -- UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)
"[N]either the Bill of Rights nor the laws of sovereign States create the liberty which the Due Process Clause protects. The relevant constitutional provisions are limitations on the power of the sovereign to infringe on the liberty of the citizen. . . . Of course, law is essential to the exercise and enjoyment of individual liberty in a complex society. But it is not the source of liberty,. . ." -- DENNIS C. VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF NEW YORK, et al., PETITIONERS v. TIMOTHY E. QUILL et al. No. 95-1858, (1997)
". . . it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .” -- DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER, 478 F. 3d 370, (2008)
I don't know why you think the entire concept of rights can be reworked but I would argue your position, if you keep maintaining it, is only demonstrating ignorance of our constitutional system.
