little second amendment *scholarship* existed until about fifteen years ago, in part, because issue appeared settled, the few supreme court decisions on record took dim view - to varying degrees - of 'individual' right position, miller/1939 - adams/1972 - lewis/1980...
motivated, perhaps, by anti-gunner sanford levinson's (one-time new political science guy turned liberal democrat turned contrarian of sorts) argument bemoaning absence of scholarly debate on second amendment, flurry of research (some of it funded by gun lobby) produced quantity of articles in 1990s concluding/advocating individualist interpretation...
such articles typically included quotations from likes of jefferson, madison, and mason on dangers of unarmed populace, many - if not - most of them approvingly cited madison's friend (and later hamilton aide in treasuary dept) tench coxe who ostensibly *proves* individual rights argument in editorial that he wrote for philly newspaper, said proof is twofold: 1) madison letter to coxe approving of his commentary (of which remark about second amendment was included in more general analysis of bill of rights itself), 2) absence of rebuttal to coxe's article (it was only reprinted in a couple of papers, could well be that few folks ever read the piece, one of my favorite approaches re. understanding politics of the time is to check how extensively was reprint of an article, comparatively few instances can be indication that one's writing has little - to no- resonance)...
have always thought it interesting that madison's initial bill of rights proposal re. matter that became second amendment included statement recognizing right of conscientious objection to military service, admittedly execised from final version, it seems to make a for odd fit with individual right position, given that, i've long said that i don't like idea of living in a place where only the cops have guns (in fact, i think their weapons should be taken away form them)... mh