Another pre-Civil War enactment
I previously pointed out that both the 1856 Republican and the 1864 Democratic Party platforms discussed the Second Amendment in an individual rights context. This underscores the point that the "collective rights" theory is a recent invention, not an understanding held by the generation of the framers (or, in this case, even 2-3 generations later).
I just found another such indicator from this period -- the Senate version of the Kansas Enabling Act (1856). (I haven't yet checked the version the Senate approved vs. the Statutes at Large. A quick Google indicates that the situation ended up rather strangely, with the state convention authorized by the enabling act rigging the ratifying vote, the new legislature overriding that, and Congress in the end admitting Kansas as a state notwithstanding).
To complicate further, the Library of Congress link for this is far too long to post here, but it can be accessed via LoC's American Memories Collection.
Sec. 18. And be it further enacted, That inasmuch as the Constitution of the United States and the organic act of said Territory has secured to the inhabitants thereof certain inalienable rights, of which they cannot be deprived by any legislative enactment, therefore no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust; no law shall be in force or enforced in said Territory respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition for the redress of grievances; the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized; nor shall the rights of the people to keep and bear arms be infringed.
Hmm--and here's the House version, introduced by Rep. Stephens:
"Sec. 16. And be it further enacted, That no person demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments in said Territory; that the inhabitants of said Territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, of trial by jury, of proportionate representation of the people in the legislature, and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law. . . . . And the people of said Territory shall be entitled to the right to keep and bear arms, to the liberty of speech and of the press, as defined in the constitution of the United States, and all other rights of person or property thereby declared and as thereby defined."
It's from Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, SATURDAY, June 28, 1856, p.1126. You can access that via the Library of Congress although you have to do a keyword search for it.
The point made by these legislative votes, and by the inclusion of individual arm/second amendment planks in both party platforms during the 1850s and 1860s, is simply that during this period (and in fact up until the 20th century) everyone regarded the Second Amendment as an individual right. It didn't need to be debated -- the meaning was taken for granted, just as in the era of the Framers.
This is also of interest with regard to the 14th Amendment issue. One of the arguments against privileges and immunities incorporation consists (in my biased view) of quoting the 14th Amendment framers mentioning the federal Bill of Rights as if it already applied to the States (which under Supreme Court caselaw from the 1830s it did not), and stating they were obviously confused, and by inference their statements that the 14th Amendment would make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states should be disregarded. (The reasoning process whereby the statements of a framer may be disregarded if he appears, or can be made to appear, confused is not entirely clear). Here is evidence that those views were mirroring a common understanding on the part of Congress. This makes some sense, after all, if the speaker is not briefing a case in the Supremes, but making a political argument based upon reason. If a right is inalienable, it by definition cannot be given away, and the fact that one document says it cannot be given away to the national government can logically suggest that it cannot be given away to a state government. The framers of the 14th were debating, not briefing a case.