Thought experiment with collective rights theory
While we're on Heath's thesis, I'd recommend a look at Don Kate's and Glenn Reynold's William and Mary Law Review article.
Their point is essentially: the collective rights view survives only because no one means to take it seriously; it just furnishes the easiest way for courts to say "we can ignore the Second Amendment." If anyone did take the view seriously, they'd have to conclude that the Amendment was meant to curtail Federal power over the States' military capabilities (at the very least, over their reserve forces, and perhaps even as a repeal of the prohibition on States maintaining troops, as distinct from militia), or as a command to Congress to create a citizen army. Not to mention the entire National Guard system would be called into serious doubt.
"Our thought experiment has thus produced two noteworthy results. The first is the realization that the states' right interpretation of the Second Amendment, if taken seriously, would produce rather radical consequences--consequences that (perhaps deliberately) have not been discussed by its proponents. In light of those radical consequences, and the interpretation's general inconsistency with the rest of the Constitutional scheme, the states' right theory looks like a dud. What is amazing is that it has achieved such currency, at least in the popular constitutional debate.
And that is the second lesson. Although the states' right interpretation has obtained very little in the way of scholarly support in journals that require footnotes, it has been widely circulated in the popular press, even by respectable scholars who should (and, one suspects, do) know better. And this suggests a rather (p.1766)unfortunate fact: the constitutional currency has become rather debased. In the Reagan era, right-wing scholars and spokespeople were trying to narrow constitutional rights through specious interpretations. Now, with political power having shifted, the disease has spread to those on the left. Meeseism, it would seem, respects no ideological bounds.
This state of affairs is unfortunate, and for those of us who at least try to take the Constitution seriously, it is frustrating. And, because the Constitution is our blueprint for living together without killing or tyrannizing each other, it may even be dangerous."