Where did I argue that? I am just taking issue with the conclusion of the Bogus paper you claim to find "interesting." I'm not saying there were not some Southern Anti-Federalist provocateurs trying to incite fear; just that such concerns were of no significance to the other state legislatures.

Why would Bogus' theory be accepted as a recognized action of the 2nd Amendment in the states who ratified the Amendment that had already forbidden slavery?

While there was a compromise between the slave states and the rest of the Union to get the constitution ratified you are ignoring the abolitionist sentiment of the North. Those states swallowed the bitter pills of apportionment, servitude and the 20 year window . . . while banning slavery in their own jurisdictions because of its inherent evilness and the ideal that the fundamental principles of equal rights and inalienable liberty made slavery illegal and unconstitutional.

Again, to think that the 2nd Amendment, drafted with this claimed intent of protecting and perpetuating slavery was ratified by abolitionist state legislatures is quite unrealistic.

And there exposes your limited knowledge on the subject . . . As General Ulysses Grant said, "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side."

Move beyond your grade school history.

Holy smokes, now you are really getting things confused.

Dunmore's actions were done out of self preservation; the militia you speak of were not the Governor's militia, they were patriot militia motivated by fighting the crown, not by putting down a slave insurrection. Dunmore's actions of inciting and arming slaves drove Virginia slaveholders to turn from the crown in disgust.

And there was a sentiment among them that the powers of the federal government were sufficiently restrained by the simple structure of the Constitution. Again, didn't you read the actual Bogus paper? (footnote numbers and pagination removed)

"Though the Constitution did not do so expressly, it included a number of provisions directly related to slavery. Taken together, these provisions evidenced an agreement that neither Congress nor the Northern states would attempt to interfere with slavery in the South. Most believed this was sufficient. Charles Pinckney, one of South Carolina's delegates to the Constitutional Convention, went home and told the state house of representatives:

'We have a security that the general government can never emancipate them, for no such authority is granted and it is admitted, on all hands, that the general government has no powers but what are expressly granted by the Constitution, and that all rights not expressed were reserved by the several states.'"

THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, Carl T. Bogus, University of California at Davis Law Review 31 (1998)

Bogus admits the concerns of "most" delegates of the slave states in the federal convention were appeased but then proceeds to cherry pick statements from state ratification debates. In particular he picks those of Virginia where desperate anti-Federalists were trying to defeat the Virginia legislature's ratification by any means necessary. This is what he uses as the foundation of his theory on the federal 2nd Amendment, ratified years later by all the states.

Ohhh, yes . . . The historic great "Slavery Freak-Outs" of 1790 and 1802 and 1824 and 1847 and 1862. Great defining moments in our nation . . .

There are no "militia rights" in the 2nd Amendment. The entire scope and extent of militia powers are expressed in Article I, § 8 of the Constitution.

In all the cases where disputes on the actual control of the militia were decided by the Supreme Court, the 2nd Amendment was never inspected for illumination of any aspect of "state's rights" or militia powers nor has it ever been held to speak to any "state's rights" or militia powers nor has any state ever claimed the 2nd Amendment's supposed immunity from federal intrusion and preemption of "state's rights" or militia powers.

IN FACT:

During Reconstruction Congress ordered the militias of the southern states completely disbanded and they were . . . Not one state claimed the 2nd Amendment stood as a barrier to such Congressional authority.

Do you know why they were disbanded? Because those state militias were the instruments of enforcement of the Black Codes disarming newly minted citizens in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

It seems the protection of the right to arms of recently freed slaves was paramount above any "state's right" to form, maintain and direct the actions of its official militia . . .

Now that's interesting!