That's a fair criticism. One could have a whole separate argument on whether the scope of the Bill of Rights was extended past its original, intended scope through certain amendments.The Tenth Amendment would like a word with you, as well as the Second Amendment.
Neither Jefferson nor Madison seem to "correct" Coxe on his assumption regarding the second amendment, both of them appear to accept that it refers to a pre-existing right that all Americans already had that was merely being reinforced on paper. I've seen the issue tackled in some of the Federalist Papers, but I would have to look into it more closely to provide you with a specific quote. For the record, the text of the Constitution refers to rights that are held to be self-evident. To me, it seems like both Madison and Jefferson consider that right self-evident also, as they didn't even think to challenge the assumption that it applied to private individuals, as it had before signing the document.I haven't seen any writings from Madison that suggest he considered the purpose of the Second Amendment to be anything other than to provide assurances to moderate Anti-Federalists that militias would not be disarmed.
Linked below is the letter in which Madison allegedly endorses Coxe's view of the Second Amendment, and there appears to be nothing there. Halbrook is apparently mistaken.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-13-02-0089
Wrong. Presser v. Illinois, 1886. The court specifically ruled that the right applies to individuals, not militias. Scalia wasn't even a twinkle in his great-great-grandfather's eye.The Supreme Court had never ruled that the Second Amendment applied to individuals before 2008's District of Columbia v. Heller, as a direct consequence of the work the NRA had been doing for 30 years.
The case in question reaffirmed that the right to bear arms refers to individuals, however the second amendment only restrains Congress, not state legislatures. The latter part was later overruled by McDonald v. City of Chicago.We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_firearm_court_cases_in_the_United_StatesThis second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need. In essence, it declared, although individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms.