I was reading a briefing in a pending Second Amendment case and it brought up an interesting point. If the Second Amendment is a right of the States, then didn't Abraham Lincoln violate that right when he demanded South Carolina disarm?

The other interesting item of how Constitutional law interacts, the Supreme Court ruled in Eldred v. Ashcroft the prefatory clause "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" of the copyright and patent clause didn't limit the scope of Congress' authority to regulate patents and copyrights, then the prefatory phrase "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" doesn't limit the individual right in the Amendment.

Parker v. District of Columbia is the case in question.

Only a comment on the first paragraph.

Pardon my ignorance of the jurisprudence in this area and of US history.

A simplistic reading of Amendement 2 relates to the right of the people and not the state as a possible sovereign entity.

So if South Carolina wanted to secede, isn't the state of South Carolina acting as a sovereign entity? If so doesn't the second amendment protect the residents' rights?

If my view is correct then Lincoln did not violate the individuals' rights, just the rights of the legal territory under question.