View source for Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

{{Short description|1791 amendment protecting the right to keep and bear arms}}
{{redirect|Second Amendment}}
{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
<!--

READ THIS BEFORE EDITING.

The following references are WP:RS sources which are used per WP:RS/AC guideline.
The issue has been discussed on the talk page at length.
See the "talk page" about it – it may answer your question.

Significant effort has been put forth to make this Lead adhere to the Wikipedia Manual of Style as well as to accurately and factually reflect the subject matter of the article. Please respect this.

Furthermore, it has been discussed and acknowledged that there is no practical way for this Lead to reflect all or even most of the nuances of the various issues that relate to the Second Amendment. This article is simply ''about'' the Amendment and '''not''' a place to debate or even mention every tangential issue related to it.

-->
{{Use American English|date=January 2019}}
{{Use mdy dates|cs1-dates=ll|date=September 2024}}
{{US Constitution article series}}
{{USgunlegalbox}}

The '''Second Amendment''' ('''Amendment II''') to the [[United States Constitution]] protects the [[Right to keep and bear arms in the United States|right to keep and bear arms]].<!-- Don't change the description of this law without discussing it first. --> It was ratified on December 15, 1791, along with nine other articles of the [[United States Bill of Rights]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#amdt_2_(1791) |title=US Senate Annotated Constitution |access-date=January 30, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140210235825/http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#amdt_2_(1791) |archive-date=February 10, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=z2BcSYLomQgC&pg=PA405 |title=American Government: Political Development and Institutional Change |last=Jilson |first=Cal |isbn=978-1136269691 |date=2013 |publisher=Routledge}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/saclr50&div=32&id=&page= |title=After Heller: What Now for the Second Amendment |publisher=Santa Clara Law Review |access-date=January 30, 2014 |last=Shaman |first=Jeffrey |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150428033809/http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals%2Fsaclr50&div=32&id=&page= |archive-date=April 28, 2015}}</ref> In ''[[District of Columbia v. Heller]]'' (2008), the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] affirmed that the right belongs to individuals, for [[self-defense]] in the home,<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html |title=Justices, Ruling 5–4, Endorse Personal Right to Own Gun |first=Linda |last=Greenhouse |date=June 27, 2008 |newspaper=The New York Times |access-date=February 12, 2017 |archive-date=December 1, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221201133947/https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062600615.html |title=Justices Reject D.C. Ban On Handgun Ownership |first=Robert |last=Barnes |date=June 27, 2008 |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=March 22, 2019 |archive-date=September 8, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210908122416/https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062600615.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-scotusdiary-071002.html |title=Split Decisions: Cases That Have Divided the Supreme Court in the 2007-08 Term |newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190805131210/https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-scotusdiary-071002.html |archive-date=August 5, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2008/06/court-a-constitutional-right-to-a-gun/ |title=Court: A constitutional right to a gun |date=June 26, 2008 |website=SCOTUSblog |access-date=March 22, 2019 |archive-date=January 24, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220124032606/https://www.scotusblog.com/2008/06/court-a-constitutional-right-to-a-gun/ |url-status=live}}</ref> while also including, as ''[[Dictum|dicta]]'', that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of [[firearm]]s by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2013/06/03/guncard.pdf |title=Quick Reference to Federal Firearms Laws |website=U.S. Department of Justice |access-date=August 18, 2018 |archive-date=January 19, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220119143341/https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2013/06/03/guncard.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Epstein">{{cite book |title=Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties and Justice |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CmPKNI2z5-AC&q=heller+%22not+unlimited%22&pg=PA396 |edition=8th |pages=395–396 |first1=Lee |last1=Epstein |first2=Thomas G. |last2=Walk |date=2012 |publisher=CQ Press |isbn=978-1452226743}}</ref> In ''[[McDonald v. City of Chicago]]'' (2010) the Supreme Court ruled that [[State governments of the United States|state]] and [[Local government in the United States|local]] governments are [[Incorporation of the Bill of Rights|limited to the same extent]] as the [[Federal government of the United States|federal government]] from infringing upon this right.<ref>{{cite news |first=Adam |last=Liptak |date=June 28, 2010 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html |title=Justices Extend Firearm Rights in 5-to-4 Ruling |work=The New York Times |access-date=October 31, 2020 |archive-date=December 1, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221201133919/https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.americanbar.org/publications/insights-on-law-and-society/2017/winter2017/law-review-the-14th-amendment-and-incorporation.html |title=Law Review: The Fourteenth Amendment and Incorporation |publisher=American Bar Association |access-date=May 23, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180523103447/https://www.americanbar.org/publications/insights-on-law-and-society/2017/winter2017/law-review-the-14th-amendment-and-incorporation.html |archive-date=May 23, 2018 |url-status=dead}}</ref> ''[[New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen]]'' (2022) assured the right to carry weapons in public spaces with reasonable exceptions.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English [[common law]] and was influenced by the English [[Bill of Rights 1689]]. Sir [[William Blackstone]] described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp |title=Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England – Book the First – Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals, p.&nbsp;139 |publisher=Yale |access-date=August 1, 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/20110706095101/http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp |archive-date=July 6, 2011}}</ref> While both [[James Monroe]] and [[John Adams]] supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was [[James Madison]]. In [[Federalist No. 46|''Federalist'' No. 46]], Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by the militia, "a standing army{{nbsp}}... would be opposed [by] militia." He argued that State governments "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms", and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments{{nbsp}}... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".<ref name="emerson">{{cite web |url=http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/emerson.html |title=United States of America v. Timothy Joe Emerson – The Ratification Debates |publisher=Law.umkc.edu |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100912233327/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/emerson.html |archive-date=September 12, 2010 |url-status=dead |access-date=August 30, 2010}}</ref><ref>Madison, James; Hamilton, John. C. (ed.); ''The Federalist'', No. 46, p. 371; 1864.</ref>

By January 1788, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Connecticut ratified the Constitution without insisting upon amendments. Several amendments were proposed, but were not adopted at the time the Constitution was ratified. For example, the Pennsylvania convention debated fifteen amendments, one of which concerned the right of the people to be armed, another with the militia. The Massachusetts convention also ratified the Constitution with an attached list of proposed amendments. In the end, the [[Virginia Ratifying Convention|ratification convention]] was so evenly divided between those for and against the Constitution that the [[Federalist Party|federalists]] agreed to the Bill of Rights to assure ratification. 
In ''[[United States v. Cruikshank]]'' (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments {{sic}} means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/case.html |title=United States v. Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1875) |access-date=September 5, 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130828150057/http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/case.html |archive-date=August 28, 2013}}</ref> In ''[[United States v. Miller]]'' (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZS.html |title=United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) |publisher=Cornell University Law School |access-date=September 5, 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130928111431/http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZS.html |archive-date=September 28, 2013}}</ref><ref name="crs2a">CRS Report for Congress ''District of Columbia v. Heller: The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment'' April 11, 2008, Congressional Research Service T.J. Halsted, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division. Order Code RL34446 {{cite web |url=http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf |title=District of Columbia v. Heller: The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment |access-date=June 27, 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130703221619/http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf |archive-date=July 3, 2013}}</ref>

In the 21st century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed [[#Commentary since late 20th century|academic inquiry]] and [[Firearm case law in the United States|judicial interest]].<ref name="crs2a" /> In ''District of Columbia v. Heller'' (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a [[List of landmark court decisions in the United States#The right of the people to keep and bear arms|landmark decision]] that held the amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun for self-defense.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html |title=Justices, Ruling 5–4, Endorse Personal Right to Own Gun |first=Linda |last=Greenhouse |date=June 27, 2008 |access-date=May 23, 2018 |newspaper=The New York Times |archive-date=December 1, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221201133947/https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="brennancenter.org">{{cite web |first=Michael |last=Waldman |date=May 20, 2014 |url=https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment |title=Expert Brief: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment |publisher=[[Brennan Center for Justice]] |access-date=May 23, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230924130003/https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment |archive-date=September 24, 2023}}</ref> This was the first time the Court had ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062600615.html |title=Justices reject D.C. ban on handgun Ownership |first=Robert |last=Barnes |date=June 27, 2008 |access-date=May 23, 2018 |newspaper=The Washington Post |archive-date=June 27, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080627080423/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062600615.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-court/americans-have-right-to-guns-under-landmark-ruling-idUSWBT00928420080626 |title=Americans have right to guns under landmark ruling |first=James |last=Vicini |work=[[Reuters]] |access-date=May 23, 2018 |archive-date=May 24, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180524151404/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-court/americans-have-right-to-guns-under-landmark-ruling-idUSWBT00928420080626 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="brennancenter.org" /> In ''[[McDonald v. Chicago]]'' (2010), the Supreme Court clarified that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment against state and local governments.<ref name="nytimes.com">{{cite news |last=Liptak |first=Adam |title=Justices Extend Firearm Rights in 5-to-4 Ruling |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html?src=me |access-date=December 17, 2012 |newspaper=The New York Times |date=June 28, 2010 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130227193422/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html?src=me |archive-date=February 27, 2013}}</ref> In ''[[Caetano v. Massachusetts]]'' (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding," and that its protection is not limited only to firearms, nor "only those weapons useful in warfare." In addition to affirming the right to carry firearms in public, ''[[New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen]]'' (2022) created a new test that laws seeking to limit Second Amendment rights must be based on the history and tradition of gun rights, although the test was refined to focus on similar analogues and general principles rather than strict matches from the past in ''[[United States v. Rahimi]]'' (2024). [[Gun politics in the United States|The debate]] between various organizations regarding [[gun control]] and [[Right to keep and bear arms#United States|gun rights]] continues.<ref>{{cite book |editor-last=Carter |editor-first=Gregg Lee |title=Guns in American society: an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law |publisher=ABC-CLIO |location=Santa Barbara, California |isbn=978-0313386701 |at=Introduction |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QeGJH48PT0kC |edition=2nd |date=2012}}</ref>

==Text==
There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the version passed by [[United States Congress|Congress]] and put on display and the versions ratified by the states.<ref>The second amendment's capitalization and punctuation are not uniformly reported; another version has three commas, after "militia", "state", and "arms". Since documents were at that time copied by hand, variations in punctuation and capitalization are common, and the copy retained by the first Congress, the copies transmitted by it to the state legislatures, and the ratifications returned by them show wide variations in such details. Letter from Marlene McGuirl, Chief, British-American Law Division, Library of Congress (October 29, 1976).</ref><ref name="Clause and Effect">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16freedman.html?_r=0 |work=The New York Times |first=Adam |last=Freedman |title=Clause and Effect |date=December 16, 2007 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170226185837/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16freedman.html?_r=0 |archive-date=February 26, 2017}}</ref><ref name="archives">{{cite web |url=https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2012/fall/const-errors.html |title=Errors in the Constitution |publisher=archives.gov |access-date=September 23, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140820031312/http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2012/fall/const-errors.html |archive-date=August 20, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jL_5xciR53UC&q=second+amendment+one+comma&pg=PA207 |title=U.S. Constitution For Dummies |first=Michael |last=Arnheim |author-link=Michael Arnheim |date=2009 |publisher=Wiley |access-date=July 5, 2013 |isbn=978-0470531105}}</ref> These differences have been a focus of debate regarding the meaning of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of what the courts have called the prefatory clause.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/the-comma-in-the-second-amendment-2013-8 |title=How a comma gave Americans the right to own guns |website=[[Business Insider]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160619054610/http://www.businessinsider.com/the-comma-in-the-second-amendment-2013-8 |archive-date=June 19, 2016}}. ''Business Insider''. Retrieved on July 1, 2016.</ref><ref name=":0">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16freedman.html |title=Clause and effect |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170126101814/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16freedman.html |archive-date=January 26, 2017 |newspaper=The New York Times |date=December 16, 2007 |access-date=July 1, 2016}}</ref>

The final, handwritten original of the Bill of Rights as passed by Congress, with the rest of the original prepared by [[scribe]] [[William Lambert (writer)|William Lambert]], is preserved in the [[National Archives and Records Administration|National Archives]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html |title=National Archives – Bill of Rights |access-date=May 28, 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/20171023104150/https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html |archive-date=October 23, 2017}}</ref> This is the version ratified by Delaware<ref name="Which Is the Constitution?">Davies, pp. 209–16.</ref> and used by the Supreme Court in ''District of Columbia v. Heller'':<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Scalia |first1=Antonin |title=District of Columbis et al. v. Heller |journal=United States Reports |date=2008 |volume=554 |page=576 |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/554bv.pdf |access-date=August 7, 2020 |archive-date=September 14, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200914173330/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/554bv.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref>
{{blockquote |A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.}}

{{wide image|SecondAmendentoftheUnitedStatesConstitution.jpg|1999px}}

Some state-ratified versions, such as Maryland's, omitted the first or final commas:<ref name="Which Is the Constitution?" /><ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XGVRu745m6sC&q=second+amendment+punctuation&pg=PA183 |title=Separation of Powers in Practice – Thomas Campbell |via=Google Books |access-date=July 5, 2013 |isbn=978-0804750271 |last1=Campbell |first1=Thomas |date=2004 |publisher=Stanford University Press}}</ref><ref name="Clause and Effect" />
{{blockquote |A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.}}

The ratification acts from New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and South Carolina contained only one comma, but with differences in capitalization. Pennsylvania's act states:<ref>{{cite book |last1=Campbell |first1=Thomas |title=Separation of Powers in Practice |date=2004 |publisher=Stanford University Press |isbn=978-0804750271 |page=184 |url=https://smile.amazon.com/Separation-Powers-Practice-Tom-Campbell/dp/0804747369/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=Separation+of+Powers+in+Practice&qid=1596845989&s=books&sr=1-2 |access-date=June 27, 2013 |quote=The Bill of Rights, as passed by both houses of Congress, contained twelve articles. The first two articles failed of ratification, and thus it was article four which ultimately became the Second Amendment. The 'official copy of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing articles to the Legislatures of the States,' as exhibited at the National Archives Building contains all three commas. However, to facilitate ratification of the proposed amendments, 13 copies were made by hand for forwarding to the states. At least one of these documents (viewed at the National Archives Building) omitted the final comma. In conveying notice of ratification, some states (e.g. Delaware) merely attached the official state action to the copy received. Other states (e.g. New York) recopied the text of the amendments in its notification. The New York ratification document of March 27, 1790, contains only one comma in the fourth article. [quoting a letter by Kent M. Ronhovde, Legislative Attorney for the Library of Congress, c. 1989]}}</ref><ref name="loc">{{cite web |url=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=220 |title=A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875 |publisher=memory.loc.gov |access-date=September 23, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150428191216/http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001%2Fllsl001.db&recNum=220 |archive-date=April 28, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/html/GPO-CONAN-1992-10-3.htm |series=The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation |edition=1992 |title=Second Amendment – Bearing Arms |work=Gpo.gov |access-date=July 5, 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130529063830/http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/html/GPO-CONAN-1992-10-3.htm |archive-date=May 29, 2013}}</ref>

{{blockquote |A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.}}

The ratification act from New Jersey has no commas:<ref name="Which Is the Constitution?" />

{{blockquote |A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.}}

==Pre-Constitution background==

===Influence of the English Bill of Rights of 1689===
The right of [[Protestantism|Protestants]] to bear arms in [[History of England|English history]] is regarded in English common law as a subordinate auxiliary right of the primary rights to personal security, personal liberty, and private property. According to [[William Blackstone|Sir William Blackstone]], "The{{nbsp}}... last auxiliary right of the subject{{nbsp}}... is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is{{nbsp}}... declared by{{nbsp}}... statute, and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the [[Natural and legal rights|natural right]] of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."<ref name="Blackstone 1765">{{cite book |last=Blackstone |first=William |author-link=William Blackstone |title=Commentaries on the Laws of England |at=Book&nbsp;1, Chapter&nbsp;1 |date=1765 |quote=the fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject{{nbsp}}... is that of having arms for their defence{{nbsp}}... when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.}}</ref>

The English [[Bill of Rights of 1689]] emerged from a tempestuous period in English politics during which two issues were major sources of conflict: the authority of the king to govern without the consent of Parliament, and the role of [[Catholic Church in England|Catholics]] in a country with a staunchly Protestant majority. Ultimately, the Catholic [[James II of England|James&nbsp;II]] was overthrown in the [[Glorious Revolution]], and his successors, the Protestants [[William III of England|William&nbsp;III]] and [[Mary II of England|Mary&nbsp;II]], accepted the conditions that were codified in the bill. One of the issues the bill resolved was the authority of the king to disarm his subjects, after James&nbsp;II had disarmed many Protestants that were "suspected or knowne" of disliking the government,<ref>Bogus, Carl T. "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment". https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/davlr31&id=319&men_tab=srchresults.</ref> and had argued with Parliament over his desire to maintain a standing (or permanent) army.{{efn|From the [[English Civil War]] until the [[Glorious Revolution]], militias occasionally disarmed Catholics, and the king, without parliament's consent, and likewise occasionally disarmed Protestants. See: Malcolm, "The Role of the Militia", pp.&nbsp;139–151.}} The bill states that it is acting to restore "ancient rights" trampled upon by James&nbsp;II, though some have argued that the English Bill of Rights created a new right to have arms, which developed out of a duty to have arms.<ref>Joyce Lee Malcolm, ''Right to keep and bear arms|To Keep and Bear Arms''.</ref> In ''[[District of Columbia v. Heller]]'' (2008), the Supreme Court did not accept this view, remarking that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the Crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms.<ref>"They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the{{nbsp}}... (Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed:{{nbsp}}... This right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment&nbsp;... It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia. To be sure, it was an individual right not available to the whole population, given that it was restricted to Protestants, and like all written English rights it was held only against the Crown, not Parliament." {{cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html |title=Opinion of the Court in ''Heller'' |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130318012022/http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html |archive-date=March 18, 2013}}</ref>

The text of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 includes language protecting the right of Protestants against disarmament by [[the Crown]], stating: "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law."<ref name="c21WillMarSess2">{{cite web |url=http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1518621 |title=1688 c.2 1 Will. and Mar. Sess. 2 |publisher=Statutelaw.gov.uk |access-date=August 30, 2010 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100824084135/http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1518621 |archive-date=August 24, 2010}}</ref> It also contained text that aspired to bind future Parliaments, though under English constitutional law no Parliament can bind any later Parliament.<ref>Barnett, ''Law'', p.&nbsp;172.</ref>

The statement in the English Bill of Rights concerning the right to bear arms is often quoted only in the passage where it is written as above and not in its full context. In its full context it is clear that the bill was asserting the right of Protestant citizens not to be disarmed by the king without the consent of Parliament and was merely restoring rights to Protestants that the previous King briefly and unlawfully had removed. In its full context it reads:<ref name="c21WillMarSess2" />

{{blockquote|Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evil Councillors Judges and Ministers employed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom ''(list of grievances including)''{{nbsp}}... by causing several good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and employed contrary to Law, ''(Recital regarding the change of monarch)''{{nbsp}}... thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation taking into their most serious Consideration the best means for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Ancestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their ancient Rights and Liberties, Declare ''(list of rights including)''{{nbsp}}... That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defense suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.}}

The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one, has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court.{{efn|"This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed'. As we (the United States Supreme Court) said in ''United States v. Cruikshank'', {{ussc |92 |542 |pin= 553 |1876}}, '[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed&nbsp;...' Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles&nbsp;II and James&nbsp;II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J.&nbsp;Malcolm, ''To Keep and Bear Arms'' 31–53 (1994) (hereinafter Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, ''The Declaration of Rights'', 1689, p.&nbsp;76 (1981). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James&nbsp;II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm 103–06. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of military forces run by the state (regulars) and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the ''Declaration of Right'' (which was codified as the ''English Bill of Rights''), that Protestants would never be disarmed: 'That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.' 1 W. & M., c. 2, §7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689). This right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment. See E. Dumbauld, ''The Bill of Rights and What It Means Today'' 51 (1957); [[#{{sfnref|Rawle|1825}}|W. Rawle, ''A View of the Constitution of the United States of America'' 122 (1825)]]" From the Opinion of the Court in District of Columbia versus Heller {{cite web |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf |title=District of Columbia v. Heller |access-date=February 25, 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130302152731/http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf |archive-date=March 2, 2013}} }}{{efn|Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], wrote that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" was just a controlling one and referred to it as a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for [[self-defense]] and intrinsically for defense against [[tyranny]]. As with the English law "like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." {{cite web |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf |title=District of Columbia v. Heller |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130302152731/http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf |archive-date=March 2, 2013}} }}

The English Bill of Rights includes the proviso that arms must be as "allowed by law". This has been the case before and after the passage of the Bill. While it did not override earlier restrictions on the ownership of guns for hunting, it is subject to the [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|parliamentary]] right to implicitly or explicitly repeal earlier enactments.<ref>"Where a later enactment does not expressly repeal an earlier enactment which it has power to override, but the provisions of the later enactment are contrary to those of the earlier, the latter by implication repeals the earlier." ''R v. Burke'', [1998] EWHC Admin 913; "[T]he Bill of Rights{{nbsp}}... was declaratory of the common law. It contained in it its own words of limitation, namely that the right to have arms for self-defence is limited by the words 'and as allowed by Law'. The law is a changing thing. Parliament by statute can repeal the common law{{nbsp}}... Where the Bill of Rights says that 'the Subjects may have arms for their defence suitable for their condition and as allowed by law', 'and as allowed by law' means 'and as allowed by law for the time being'[.]" ''R v. Burke'', [1999] EWCA Civ 923.</ref>

There is some difference of opinion as to how revolutionary the events of 1688–89 actually were, and several commentators make the point that the provisions of the English Bill of Rights did not represent new laws, but rather stated existing rights. Mark Thompson wrote that, apart from determining the succession, the English Bill of Rights did "little more than set forth certain points of existing laws and simply secured to Englishmen the rights of which they were already {{sic|pos|essed}}."<ref>{{cite book |title=Constitutional History of England |last=Thompson |first=Mark |date=1938}} qtd. in Maer and Gay, p. 4.</ref> Before and after the English Bill of Rights, the government could always disarm any individual or class of individuals it considered dangerous to the peace of the realm.<ref name="isbn0-674-89307-7">Malcolm, ''To Keep and Bear Arms'', p.&nbsp;51.</ref> In 1765, [[William Blackstone|Sir William Blackstone]] wrote the ''[[Commentaries on the Laws of England]]'' describing the right to have arms in England during the 18th century as a subordinate auxiliary right of the subject that was "also declared" in the English Bill of Rights.<ref name="Blackstone 1765" /><ref name="Bodenahamer">Ely and Bodenhamer, pp.&nbsp;89–91.</ref><ref name="HeymanChigagoKent">Heyman, pp. 253–59. "Finally, we should note that (contrary to Kates's assertion), Blackstone nowhere suggests that the right to arms derives from 'the common law'. Instead, this is a right that is secured by 'the constitution', and in particular by the Bill of Rights."</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://avalon.law.Yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp |title=English Bill of Rights, 1689, "An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown" |department=The Avalon Project |publisher=Yale Law School |date=2008 |access-date=December 26, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081022115455/http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp |archive-date=October 22, 2008}}</ref>

{{blockquote |The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute [[Bill of Rights 1689|1 W. & M. st.2. c.2.]] and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of [[oppression]].}}

Although there is little doubt that the writers of the Second Amendment were heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights, it is a matter of interpretation as to whether they were intent on preserving the power to regulate arms to the states over the federal government (as the English Parliament had reserved for itself against the monarch) or whether it was intent on creating a new right akin to the right of others written into the Constitution (as the Supreme Court decided in ''Heller''). Some in the United States have preferred the "rights" argument arguing that the English Bill of Rights had granted a right. The need to have arms for self-defence was not really in question. Peoples all around the world since time immemorial had armed themselves for the protection of themselves and others, and as organized nations began to appear these arrangements had been extended to the protection of the state.<ref>{{efn|E.g., [[Henry II of England|King Henry II's]] [[Assize of Arms of 1181|Assize of Arms]] and the Statute of Winchester of 1285. See: {{cite encyclopedia |title=The history of policing in the West, Collective responsibility in early Anglo-Saxon times |url=http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/467289/police/36612/Collective-responsibility-in-early-Anglo-Saxon-times#ref=ref416705 |encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica |edition=online |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090607022310/http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/467289/police/36612/Collective-responsibility-in-early-Anglo-Saxon-times |archive-date=June 7, 2009}}</ref> Without a regular army and police force, it had been the duty of certain men to keep watch and ward at night and to confront and capture suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king's peace and assist in the suppression of riots.<ref name="Levy1999">Levy, pp.&nbsp;136–37.</ref>

===Influence of the British Militia Act 1757===

In 1757 [[Parliament of Great Britain|Great Britain's Parliament]] created the [[Militia Act 1757]] ([[30 Geo. 2]]. c. 25), "An Act for better ordering of the militia forces in the several counties of that part of Great Britain called England".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://archive.org/details/statutesatlarge33britgoog/page/127/mode/1up?q=militia |title=Statutes at large |date=1762}}</ref> This act declared that "a well-ordered and well-disciplined militia is essentially necessary to the safety, peace and prosperity of this kingdom," and that the current militia laws for the regulation of the militia were defective and ineffectual. Influenced by this act, in 1775 [[Timothy Pickering]] created "An Easy Plan of Discipline for a Militia".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://archive.org/details/easyplanofdiscip2177pick/page/n4/mode/1up |title=An easy plan of discipline for a militia |date=1776}}</ref> Greatly inhibited by the events surrounding [[Salem, Massachusetts]], where the plan was printed, Pickering submitted the writing to [[George Washington]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-02-02-0583 |title=Founders Online: To George Washington from Timothy Pickering, 1775 |access-date=August 27, 2022 |archive-date=August 27, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220827161108/https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-02-02-0583 |url-status=live}}</ref> On May 1, 1776, the Massachusetts Bay Councell resolved that Pickering's discipline, a modification of the 1757 act, be the discipline of their Militia.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://archive.org/details/easyplanofdiscip2177pick/page/n3/mode/1up |title=An easy plan of discipline for a militia |date=1776}}</ref> On March 29, 1779, for members of the [[Continental Army]] this was replaced by [[Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben|Von Steuben's]] [[Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(jc01380)) |title=Journals of the Continental Congress --MONDAY, MARCH 29, 1779 |access-date=August 27, 2022 |archive-date=August 27, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220827161107/https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(jc01380)) |url-status=live}}</ref> With ratification of the Second Amendment, after May 8, 1792, the entire United States Militia, barring two declarations, would be regulated by Von Steuben's Discipline.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=396 |title=A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875}}</ref>

===America before the U.S. Constitution===
[[File:Minute Man Statue Lexington Massachusetts cropped.jpg|thumb|right |Ideals that helped to inspire the Second Amendment in part are symbolized by the [[minutemen]].<ref name="Saul_Cornell_two_models">{{cite book |last=Cornell |first=Saul |title=Gun Control |page=2}}</ref>{{full citation needed|date=September 2024|reason=Two works by Saul Cornell are fully cited, with sufficient identifying information, but this one is not. Either it's a separate work titled ''Gun Control'' or someone has confusingly abbreviated the title of one of the already-cited works, ''A Well-Regulated Militia – The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America''.}}]]
King [[Charles I of England|Charles&nbsp;I]] authorized the use of arms for special defense and safety, on land and at sea, against:
* destructive forces<ref name="Roberts">{{cite book |last=Roberts |first=Oliver Ayer |date=1895 |title=History of the Military Company of the Massachusetts, now called the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts: 1637–1888 |volume=1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CWUUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA2 |location=Boston |publisher=Alfred Mudge & Son |pages=1–2 |access-date=March 21, 2018 |archive-date=May 11, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240511151637/https://books.google.com/books?id=CWUUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q&f=false |url-status=live}}</ref>
* invasive forces<ref name="Roberts" />
* detrimental forces<ref name="Roberts" />
* annoying forces<ref name="Roberts" />

The Military Company of Massachusetts had already ordered munition before the authorization was signed. Early Americans had other uses for arms, besides the uses King Charles had in mind:{{efn|name=papers.ssrn.com|Hardy, p.&nbsp;1237. "Early Americans wrote of the right in light of three considerations: (1) as auxiliary to a natural right of self-defense; (2) as enabling an armed people to deter undemocratic government; and (3) as enabling the people to organize a militia system."}}{{efn|Malcolm, "That Every Man Be Armed", pp.&nbsp;452, 466. "The Second Amendment reflects traditional English attitudes toward these three distinct, but intertwined, issues: the right of the individual to protect his life, the challenge to government of an armed citizenry, and the preference for a militia over a standing army. The [[Founding Fathers of the United States|framers']] attempt to address all three in a single declarative sentence has contributed mightily to the subsequent confusion over the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment."}}<ref name="isbn0-300-08901-5">Levy, p.&nbsp;136.</ref><ref name="Merkel62withquote">Merkel and Uviller, pp. 62, 179&nbsp;ff, 183, 188 ff, 306. "[T]he right to bear arms was articulated as a civic right inextricably linked to the civic obligation to bear arms for the public defense."</ref><ref name="isbn1-57607-347-5pg155">Spitzer, pp.&nbsp;155–59.</ref><ref name="isbn0-253-21040-2">Dulaney, p.&nbsp;2.</ref><ref name="Bogus2001">{{cite book |last=Bellesiles |first=Michael A. |editor-last=Bogus |editor-first=Carl T. |title=The Second Amendment in Law and History: Historians and Constitutional Scholars on the Right to Bear Arms |publisher=New Press |date=2001 |isbn=1565846990 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/secondamendmenti0000unse/page/67 67–69, 239–240] |url=https://archive.org/details/secondamendmenti0000unse/page/67}}</ref><ref name="isbn0-8223-3017-2pg189">Merkel and Uviller, pp. 62, 179ff, 183, 188ff, 306.</ref>
* safeguarding against tyrannical governments<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Humphrey |first=Hubert |date=February 1960 |title=Know your lawmaker |page=4 |magazine=Guns |publisher=George E. von Rosen |url=http://gunsmagazine.com/1960issues/G0260.pdf |access-date=March 21, 2018 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141217105916/http://www.gunsmagazine.com/1960issues/G0260.pdf |archive-date=December 17, 2014}}</ref>
* suppressing insurrection, allegedly including [[Slave rebellion#North America|slave revolts]],<ref name="Bogus1998">{{cite journal |ssrn=1465114 |title=The Hidden History of the Second Amendment |last=Bogus |first=Carl T. |journal=U.C. Davis Law Review |date=Winter 1998 |volume=31 |pages=309–408}}</ref><ref name="Hartmann2013">{{cite news |url=http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery |title=The Second Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery |work=Truthout.org |date=January 15, 2013 |access-date=February 4, 2013 |last=Hartmann |first=Thom |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130201222348/http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery |archive-date=February 1, 2013}}</ref><ref name="Slave_Insurrection_motherjones">{{cite web |first=Stephanie |last=Mencimer |url=https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/whitewashing-second-amendment |title=Whitewashing the Second Amendment |date=2008 |access-date=January 16, 2013 |quote=the 'well-regulated militias' cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. |url-status=live |archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20090531100141/https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/whitewashing-second-amendment |archive-date=May 31, 2009}}</ref> though professor Paul Finkelman has pointed out that the claim of a specific intent to protect the ability to put down slave revolts is not supported by the historical record<ref name="finkelman">{{cite web |last=Finkelman |first=Paul |url=https://www.theroot.com/2nd-amendment-passed-to-protect-slavery-no-1790894965 |title=2nd Amendment passed to protect slavery? No! |date=January 21, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180224053254/https://www.theroot.com/2nd-amendment-passed-to-protect-slavery-no-1790894965 |archive-date=February 24, 2018 |work=[[The Root (magazine)|The Root]]}}</ref>
* facilitating a natural right of self-defense<ref name="papers.ssrn.com">Hardy, p. 1237. "Early Americans wrote of the right in light of three considerations: (1) as auxiliary to a natural right of self-defense; (2) as enabling an armed people to deter undemocratic government; and (3) as enabling the people to organize a militia system."</ref>

Which of these considerations were thought of as most important and ultimately found expression in the Second Amendment is disputed. Some of these purposes were explicitly mentioned in early state constitutions; for example, the [[Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776]] asserted that, "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://avalon.law.Yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp |title=Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 |department=The Avalon Project |publisher=Yale Law School |date=2008 |access-date=December 26, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081022115455/http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp |archive-date=October 22, 2008}}</ref>

During the 1760s pre-revolutionary period, the established colonial militia was composed of colonists, including many who were loyal to [[Thirteen Colonies|British rule]]. As defiance and opposition to British rule developed, a distrust of these [[Loyalist (American Revolution)|Loyalists]] in the militia became widespread among the colonists known as [[Patriot (American Revolution)|Patriots]], who favored independence from British rule. As a result, some Patriots created their own militias that excluded the Loyalists and then sought to stock independent armories for their militias. In response to this arms build-up, the British Parliament established an embargo of firearms, parts and ammunition against the American colonies<ref name="DeConde2001">{{cite book |last=DeConde |first=Alexander |title=Gun Violence in America: The struggle for control |url=https://archive.org/details/gunviolenceiname00deco |url-access=registration |access-date=December 29, 2014 |date=2001 |publisher=Northeastern University Press |isbn=978-1555534868}}</ref> which in some instance came to be referred to as [[Powder Alarm]]s. King [[George III]] also began disarming individuals who were in the most rebellious areas in the 1760s and 1770s.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/davlr31&id=319&men_tab=srchresults. |title=Redirecting |access-date=November 19, 2018 |archive-date=May 11, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240511151729/https://heinonline.org/HOL/Welcome?message=Please%20log%20in&url=%2FHOL%2FPage%3Fcollection%3Djournals%26handle%3Dhein.journals%2Fdavlr31%26id%3D319%26men_tab%3Dsrchresults. |url-status=live}}</ref>

British and Loyalist efforts to disarm the colonial Patriot militia armories in the early phases of the [[American Revolution]] resulted in the Patriot colonists protesting by citing the [[Declaration of Right, 1689|Declaration of Right]], Blackstone's summary of the Declaration of Right, their own militia laws and [[Self-defence in English law#Common law (self defence)|common law rights to self-defense]].<ref name="HalbrookHardy">{{cite journal |title=Boston, March 17 |journal=N. Y. J. Suppl. |date=April 13, 1769 |page=1, Col.3}} cited in Halbrook, ''A Right to Bear Arms'', p.&nbsp;7.</ref> While British policy in the early phases of the Revolution clearly aimed to prevent coordinated action by the Patriot militia, some have argued that there is no evidence that the British sought to restrict the traditional common law right of self-defense.<ref name="HalbrookHardy" /> Patrick J. Charles disputes these claims citing similar disarming by the patriots and challenging those scholars' interpretation of Blackstone.<ref>Charles, "Arms for Their Defence?", p.&nbsp;4.</ref>

The right of the colonists to arms and rebellion against oppression was asserted, for example, in a pre-revolutionary newspaper editorial in 1769 objecting to the Crown suppression of colonial opposition to the [[Townshend Acts]]:<ref name="HalbrookHardy" /><ref>{{cite web |last=Scalia |first=Antonin |author-link=Antonin Scalia |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html |title=District Of Columbia V. Heller |publisher=Law.cornell.edu |access-date=2022-02-17 |archive-date=March 18, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130318012022/http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html |url-status=live}}</ref>
{{blockquote |Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature, and have been carried to such lengths, as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon its inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal: such violences are always to be apprehended from military troops, when quartered in the body of a populous city; but more especially so, when they are led to believe that they are become necessary to awe a spirit of rebellion, injuriously said to be existing therein. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.}}

The armed forces that won the American Revolution consisted of the standing [[Continental Army]] created by the [[Continental Congress]], together with [[France in the American Revolutionary War#French involvement|regular French army and naval forces]] and various state and regional militia units. In opposition, the [[List of British units in the American Revolutionary War|British forces]] consisted of a mixture of the standing [[British Army]], Loyalist militia and [[Hessian (soldiers)|Hessian]] [[auxiliaries]]. Following the Revolution, the United States was governed by the [[Articles of Confederation]]. Federalists argued that this government had an unworkable division of power between Congress and the states, which caused military weakness, as the [[standing army]] was reduced to as few as 80 men.<ref name="isbn0-472-03370-0pg91-92">Anderson and Horwitz, pp.&nbsp;91–92.</ref> They considered it to be bad that there was no effective federal military crackdown on an armed tax rebellion in western [[Massachusetts]] known as [[Shays' Rebellion]].<ref>{{cite web |last=Vest |first=Rose |url=http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/birth/1bc3b.html |title=Shay's rebellion |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081225171928/http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/birth/1bc3b.html |archive-date=December 25, 2008 |website=Home of Heroes}}</ref> Anti-federalists, on the other hand, took the side of limited government and sympathized with the rebels, many of whom were former Revolutionary War soldiers. Subsequently, the [[Constitutional Convention (United States)|Constitutional Convention]] proposed in 1787 to grant Congress exclusive power to raise and support a standing army and navy of unlimited size.<ref name="isbn1-4051-1674-9pg398">Pole and Greene, p.&nbsp;386.</ref><ref name="isbn1-85109-669-8">Vile, p.&nbsp;30.</ref> [[Anti-Federalism|Anti-federalists]] objected to the shift of power from the states to the federal government, but as adoption of the Constitution became more and more likely, they shifted their strategy to establishing a bill of rights that would put some limits on federal power.<ref name="isbn0-8223-3017-2pg79">Merkel and Uviller, p.&nbsp;79.</ref>

Modern scholars Thomas B. McAffee and Michael J. Quinlan have stated that [[James Madison]] "did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment; the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions."<ref>McAffee and Quinlan, p. 781.</ref> In contrast, historian [[Jack N. Rakove|Jack Rakove]] suggests that Madison's intention in framing the Second Amendment was to provide assurances to moderate Anti-Federalists that the militias would not be disarmed.<ref name="Rakove">Rakove, p. ?{{page needed |date=February 2011}}</ref>

One aspect of the gun control debate is the conflict between gun control laws and the right to rebel against unjust governments. Blackstone in his ''Commentaries'' alluded to this right to rebel as the natural right of resistance and self preservation, to be used only as a last resort, exercisable when "the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression".<ref name="Blackstone 1765" /> Some believe that the framers of the Bill of Rights sought to balance not just political power, but also military power, between the people, the states and the nation,<ref name="Millis">Millis, p.&nbsp;49. "The founders sought to balance military, as they did political, power, between people, states, and nation[.]"</ref> as [[Alexander Hamilton]] explained in his "[[Federalist No. 29|Concerning the Militia]]" essay published in 1788:<ref name="Millis" /><ref name="FederalistPapers29" />
{{blockquote |...{{nbsp}}it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defence of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the Government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the People, while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights, and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.}}

There was an ongoing debate beginning in 1789 about "the people" fighting governmental tyranny (as described by Anti-Federalists); or the risk of [[Ochlocracy|mob rule]] of "the people" (as described by the Federalists) related to the increasingly violent [[French Revolution]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=L17931222ja&mode=popuplg&pop=L17931222ja_2 |title=Letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams, December 22, 1793 |publisher=Masshist.org |access-date=August 30, 2010 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101016032632/http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=L17931222ja&mode=popuplg&pop=L17931222ja_2 |archive-date=October 16, 2010}}</ref> A widespread fear, during the debates on ratifying the Constitution, was the possibility of a military takeover of the states by the federal government, which could happen if the Congress passed laws prohibiting states from arming citizens,{{efn|Cooke, p.&nbsp;100. "This is another protection against a possible abuse by Congress. The right protected is really the right of a state to maintain an armed militia, or national guard, as we call it now. In the eighteenth century people feared that Congress might, by passing a law, prohibit the states from arming their citizens. Then having all the armed strength at its command, the national government could overwhelm the states. Such a circumstance has never happened, but this amendment would prevent it. The Second Amendment does not give anybody or everybody the right to possess and use firearms. The states may very properly prescribe regulations and permits governing the use of guns within their borders."}} or prohibiting citizens from arming themselves.<ref name="HalbrookHardy" /> Though it has been argued that the states lost the power to arm their citizens when the power to arm the militia was transferred from the states to the federal government by Article{{nbsp}}I, Section{{nbsp}}8 of the Constitution, the individual right to arm was retained and strengthened by the [[Militia Acts of 1792]] and the similar act of 1795.<ref>US Constitution Article 1 Section 8: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol3/june14.html |title=Elliots debates |volume=3 |series=Virginia Convention |date=June 14, 1788 |publisher=Teachingamericanhistory.org |access-date=August 30, 2010 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100613033414/http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol3/june14.html |archive-date=June 13, 2010}} The national government has an exclusive right to provide for arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. The state governments have the power of appointing the officers, and of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress, if they should think proper to prescribe any. Should the national government wish to render the militia useless, they may neglect them, and let them perish, in order to have a pretence of establishing a standing army.</ref>

More recently some have advanced what has been called the  [[insurrectionist theory]] of the Second Amendment whereby it is the right of any citizen to take up arms against their government should they consider it illegitimate.  Such a reading has been voiced by organizations such as the [[National Rifle Association of America]] (NRA)<ref>{{cite book  |last1=Horowitz |first1=Joshua |last2=Anderson |first2=Casey |date=2009 |title=Guns, democracy, and the insurrectionist idea |location=Ann Arbor, Michigan |publisher=University of Michigan Press |doi=10.3998/mpub.180934 |isbn=978-0-472-90088-6 |pages=21–25}}</ref> and by various individuals including some elected officials.<ref>{{cite thesis |url=https://theses.ubn.ru.nl/handle/123456789/12339 |title=Gunning for Office: Right-Wing Populism and Gender in the Congressional Campaigns of Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene |last=Bewermeier |first=Pauline G.L. |date=2021 |publisher=Radboud Universitet |access-date=August 15, 2023 |archive-date=August 15, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230815202102/https://theses.ubn.ru.nl/handle/123456789/12339 |url-status=live}}</ref> Congressman [[Jamie Raskin]], however, has argued that there is no basis in constitutional law or scholarship for this view.<ref name="20230927NYTRaskin">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/27/opinion/us-second-amendment.html |newspaper=The New York Times |title=The Second Amendment gives no comfort to insurrectionists |first=Jamie |last=Raskin |date=September 27, 2022 |access-date=August 13, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230815202046/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/27/opinion/us-second-amendment.html |archive-date=August 15, 2023}}</ref>  He notes that, not only does this represent a misreading of the text of the Amendment as drafted, it stands in violation of other elements of the Constitution.<ref name="20230927NYTRaskin" />

==State Constitutional Precursors to the Second Amendment==
{|class="wikitable"
|-
| '''''<big>Related Articles & Sections within the first State Constitutions Adopted after May 10, 1776.</big>'''''
<small>Note: On May 10, 1776, Congress passed a resolution recommending that any colony with a government that was not inclined toward independence should form one that was.</small><ref>{{cite book |url=https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=p401AQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA166 |title=Journals of Congress Containing the Proceedings from January 1, 1776, to January 1, 1776 |volume=II (Second Continental Congress) |last=Dunlap |first=John |date=1778 |publisher=R. Aitken |access-date=June 10, 2018 |archive-date=February 27, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210227103147/https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=p401AQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA166 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|-
|
===<small>Virginia, June 12, 1776</small>===

Virginia's Constitution lists the reasons for dissolving its ties with the King in the formation of its own independent state government. Including the following:
* ''Keeping among us, in times of peace, standing armies and ships of war.''
* ''Effecting to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.''

'''''<big>*</big>''' <small>These same reasons would later be outlined within the [[United States Declaration of Independence|Declaration of Independence]].</small>''

'''A Declaration of Rights. Section 13.''' ''That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.''<ref>{{cite web |url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/virginia.asp |title=Virginia Declaration of Rights |website=The Avalon Project |access-date=May 27, 2018 |archive-date=June 7, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180607083824/http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/virginia.asp |url-status=live}}</ref>

|-
 |

===<small>Pennsylvania, September 28, 1776</small>===
'''Article 13.''' ''That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.''<ref>{{cite web |url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp |title=Constitution of Pennsylvania |date=September 28, 1776 |website=The Avalon Project |access-date=May 27, 2018 |archive-date=October 22, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081022115455/http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp |url-status=live}}</ref>

This is the first instance in relationship to U.S. Constitutional Law of the phrase "right to bear arms".

'''Article 43.''' ''The inhabitants of this state shall have the liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times on the lands they hold, and on all other lands therein not inclosed;''<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Stevens |first1=John |title=DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER |journal=United States Reports |date=2008 |volume=554 |page=642 |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/554bv.pdf |access-date=August 9, 2020 |archive-date=September 14, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200914173330/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/554bv.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref>

It is relevant that Pennsylvania was a Quaker colony traditionally opposed to bearing arms. "In settling Pennsylvania, William Penn had a great experiment in view, a 'holy experiment', as he term[ed] it. This was no less than to test, on a scale of considerable magnitude, the practicability of founding and governing a State on the sure principles of the Christian religion; '''''where the executive should be sustained without arms;''''' ''where justice should be administered without oaths;'' and where real religion might flourish without the incubus of a hierarchical system."<ref>{{cite book |title=The History of the Society of Friends in America |last=Bowden |first=James |publisher=W. & F. G. Cash |date=1854 |location=London |page=123}}</ref> The non-Quaker residents, many from the western Counties, complained often and loudly of being denied the right to a common defense. By the time of the American Revolution, through what could be described as a revolution within a revolution, the pro-militia factions had gained ascendancy in the state's government. And by a manipulation through the use of oaths, disqualifying Quaker members, they made up a vast majority of the convention forming the new state constitution; it was only natural that they would assert their efforts to form a compulsory state militia in the context of a "right" to defend themselves and the state.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Ford |first=Paul Leicester |date=September 1895 |title=The Adoption of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 |journal=Political Science Quarterly |volume=10 |issue=3 |pages=426–459 |doi=10.2307/2139954 |jstor=2139954}}</ref>
|-
|
===<small>Maryland, November 11, 1776</small>===
'''Articles XXV–XXVII.''' ''25. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government. 26. That standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up, without consent of the Legislature. 27. That in all cases, and at all times, the military ought to be under strict subordination to and control of the civil power.''<ref>{{cite web |url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/ma02.asp |title=Constitution of Maryland |date=November 11, 1776 |website=The Avalon Project |access-date=May 27, 2018 |archive-date=January 9, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150109143540/http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/ma02.asp |url-status=live}}</ref>

|-
 |href="Pennsylvania" |

===<small>North Carolina, December 18, 1776</small>===
'''A Declaration of Rights. Article XVII.''' ''That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.''<ref>{{cite web |url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nc07.asp |title=Constitution of North Carolina |date=December 18, 1776 |website=The Avalon Project |access-date=May 27, 2018 |archive-date=September 28, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090928133137/http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nc07.asp |url-status=live}}</ref>
 |-
 |

===<small>New York, April 20, 1777</small>===
'''Article XL.''' ''And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service. That all such of the inhabitants of this State being of the people called Quakers as, from scruples of conscience, may be averse to the bearing of arms, be therefrom excused by the legislature; and do pay to the State such sums of money, in lieu of their personal service, as the same; may, in the judgment of the legislature, be worth. And that a proper magazine of warlike stores, proportionate to the number of inhabitants, be, forever hereafter, at the expense of this State, and by acts of the legislature, established, maintained, and continued in every county in this State.''<ref>{{cite web |url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ny01.asp |title=The Constitution of New York |date=April 20, 1777 |website=The Avalon Project |access-date=May 27, 2018 |archive-date=August 11, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110811035901/http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ny01.asp |url-status=live}}</ref>
 |-
 |

===<small>Vermont, July 8, 1777</small>===
'''Chapter 1. Section XVIII.''' ''That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.''<ref>{{cite web |url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/vt01.asp |title=Constitution of Vermont |date=July 8, 1777 |website=The Avalon Project |access-date=May 27, 2018 |archive-date=June 1, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180601135633/http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/vt01.asp |url-status=live}}</ref>
 |- href="Anti-Federalism"
 |href="Massachusetts Compromise" |

===<small>Massachusetts, June 15, 1780</small>===
'''A Declaration of Rights. Chapter 1. Article XVII.''' ''The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.''<ref>{{cite web |url=https://malegislature.gov/laws/constitution |title=Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 |website=General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts |access-date=May 27, 2018 |archive-date=May 21, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190521052004/https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution |url-status=live}}</ref>
 |}

==Drafting and adoption of the Constitution==
{{further |Constitutional Convention (United States)#The Convention |l1=Constitutional Convention}}
{{multiple image
| direction         = horizontal
| footer            = [[James Madison]] (left) is known as the "Father of the Constitution" and "Father of the Bill of Rights"<ref>Mulloy, p. 43.</ref> while [[George Mason]] (right) with Madison is also known as the "Father of the Bill of Rights".<ref>Smith, pp.&nbsp;591, 600.</ref>
| footer_align      = left
| image1            = James_Madison.jpg
| width1            = 128
| image2            = George Mason portrait.jpg
| width2            = 123
}}
{{multiple image
| direction         = horizontal
| footer            = [[Patrick Henry]] (left) believed that a citizenry trained in arms was the only sure guarantor of liberty<ref>{{cite book |last=Cress |first=Lawrence |title=An Armed Community: The origins and meaning of the right to bear arms |page=31}} cited in Cottrol, p.&nbsp;283.</ref> while [[Alexander Hamilton]] (right) wrote in [[Federalist No. 29]] that "little more can be reasonably aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed&nbsp;..."<ref name="FederalistPapers29">{{cite journal |last=Hamilton |first=Alexander ("Publius") |author-link=Alexander Hamilton |title=[[s:The Federalist Papers/No. 29|Concerning the Militia]] |journal=The Federalist |issue=29 |date=January 9, 1788}}</ref>
| footer_align      = left
| image1            = Patrick henry.JPG
| width1            = 123
| image2            = Alexander_Hamilton_portrait_by_John_Trumbull_1806.jpg
| width2            = 126
}}

In March 1785, delegates from Virginia and Maryland assembled at the [[Mount Vernon Conference]] to fashion a remedy to the inefficiencies of the Articles of Confederation. The following year, at [[Annapolis Convention (1786)|a meeting]] in [[Annapolis, Maryland]], 12 delegates from five states ([[New Jersey]], [[New York (state)|New York]], [[Pennsylvania]], [[Delaware]], and [[Virginia]]) met and drew up a list of problems with the current government model. At its conclusion, the delegates scheduled a follow-up meeting in [[Philadelphia]], Pennsylvania for May 1787 to present solutions to these problems, such as the absence of:<ref>Vile, p.&nbsp;19.</ref><ref name="Schmidt39">Schmidt et al., p.&nbsp;39.</ref>
* interstate arbitration processes to handle quarrels between states;
* sufficiently trained and armed intrastate security forces to suppress insurrection;
* a national militia to repel foreign invaders.

It quickly became apparent that the solution to all three of these problems required shifting control of the states' militias to the federal Congress and giving it the power to raise a standing army.<ref name="isbn0-300-09562-7">Williams, pp.&nbsp;41–44.</ref> [[The Militia Clause, United States Constitution|Article 1, Section 8]] of the Constitution codified these changes by allowing the Congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States by doing the following:<ref>{{cite web |last=Story |first=Joseph |title=Commentaries on the Constitution |at=2:§§ 904–25, 927–30, 946–52, 954–70, 972–76, 988 |url=http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s28.html |work=The Founders Constitution |publisher=The University of Chicago Press |access-date=April 10, 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130309235955/http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s28.html |archive-date=March 9, 2013}}</ref>
* raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
* provide and maintain a navy;
* make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
* provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
* provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Some representatives mistrusted proposals to enlarge federal powers, because they were concerned about the inherent risks of centralizing power. [[Federalist#United States|Federalists]], including [[James Madison]], initially argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary, sufficiently confident that the federal government could never raise a standing army powerful enough to overcome a militia.<ref name="FederalistPapers46">[[s:The Federalist Papers/No. 46|''The Federalist Papers'' No. 46]] (James Madison) (concerning the influence of state and federal governments).</ref> Federalist [[Noah Webster]] argued that an armed populace would have no trouble resisting the potential threat to liberty of a standing army.<ref>{{cite web |last=Webster |first=Noah |author-link=Noah Webster |url=http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=669&chapter=206205&layout=html&Itemid=27 |title=An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100805235021/http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=669&chapter=206205&layout=html&Itemid=27 |archive-date=August 5, 2010 |date=October 10, 1787}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Webster |first=Noah |author-link=Noah Webster |pages=38–41 |chapter=A Citizen of America |date=October 10, 1787 |title=An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution}}</ref> [[Anti-Federalism|Anti-federalists]], on the other hand, advocated amending the Constitution with clearly defined and enumerated rights providing more explicit constraints on the new government. Many Anti-federalists feared the new federal government would choose to disarm state militias. Federalists countered that in listing only certain rights, unlisted rights might lose protection. The Federalists realized there was insufficient support to ratify the Constitution without a bill of rights and so they promised to support amending the Constitution to add a bill of rights following the Constitution's adoption. This [[Massachusetts Compromise|compromise]] persuaded enough Anti-federalists to vote for the Constitution, allowing for ratification.<ref>Foner and Garraty, p.&nbsp;914. "The Massachusetts compromise determined the fate of the Constitution, as it permitted delegates with doubts to vote for it in the hope that it would be amended."</ref> The Constitution was declared ratified on June&nbsp;21, 1788, when nine of the original thirteen states had ratified it. The remaining four states later followed suit, although the last two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, ratified only after Congress had passed the Bill of Rights and sent it to the states for ratification.<ref>Adamson, p. 63.</ref> James Madison drafted what ultimately became the Bill of Rights, which was proposed by the first Congress on June&nbsp;8, 1789, and was adopted on December&nbsp;15, 1791.

==Debates on amending the Constitution==
The debate surrounding the Constitution's ratification is of practical importance, particularly to adherents of [[Originalism|originalist]] and [[Strict constructionism|strict constructionist]] legal theories. In the context of such legal theories and elsewhere, it is important to understand the language of the Constitution in terms of what that language meant to the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html |title=Theories of Constitutional Interpretation |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111216131951/http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html |archive-date=December 16, 2011 |editor-last=Linder |editor-first=Doug |publisher=University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School |access-date=December 11, 2011}} Article quotes Robert Bork: "If the Constitution is law, then presumably its meaning, like that of all other law, is the meaning the lawmakers were understood to have intended."</ref>

[[Robert Whitehill (Pennsylvania politician)|Robert Whitehill]], a delegate from Pennsylvania, sought to clarify the draft Constitution with a bill of rights explicitly granting individuals the right to hunt on their own land in season,<ref>{{cite book |last=Wills |first=Garry |title=A Necessary Evil: A history of American distrust of government |url=https://archive.org/details/necessaryevilhis00will |url-access=registration |publisher=Simon and Schuster |date=1999 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/necessaryevilhis00will/page/253 253–254] |isbn=978-0684844893 |quote=Whitehill deals with guns in three of his fifteen headings. Article{{nbsp}}8 begins: 'The inhabitants of the several states shall have liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times&nbsp;...' article 7: 'That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purposes of killing game&nbsp;...'}}</ref> though Whitehill's language was never debated.<ref>{{cite book |first=Garry |last=Wills |title=A Necessary Evil: A history of American distrust of government |url=https://archive.org/details/necessaryevilhis00will |url-access=registration |publisher=Simon and Schuster |date=1999 |page=[https://archive.org/details/necessaryevilhis00will/page/253 253] |isbn=978-0684844893 |quote=The items on the [Whitehill's] list were never discussed in the convention, which went on to approve the Constitution.}}</ref>

===Argument for state power===
There was substantial opposition to the new Constitution because it moved the power to arm the state militias from the states to the federal government. This created a fear that the federal government, by neglecting the upkeep of the militia, could have overwhelming military force at its disposal through its power to maintain a standing army and navy, leading to a confrontation with the states, encroaching on the states' reserved powers and even engaging in a military takeover. [[Articles of Confederation#Article summaries|Article VI of the Articles of Confederation]] states:<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html |title=Articles of Confederation |publisher=Usconstitution.net |date=May 19, 2010 |access-date=August 30, 2010 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100826032645/http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html |archive-date=August 26, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=rbpe&fileName=rbpe17/rbpe178/17802600/rbpe17802600.db&recNum=1&itemLink=r?ammem/rbpebib:@field(NUMBER+@band(rbpe+17802600))&linkText=0 |title=US Library of Congress, repro of original text |publisher=Memory.loc.gov |access-date=August 30, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110319133805/http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=rbpe&fileName=rbpe17%2Frbpe178%2F17802600%2Frbpe17802600.db&recNum=1&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Frbpebib%3A%40field%28NUMBER+%40band%28rbpe+17802600%29%29&linkText=0 |archive-date=March 19, 2011}}</ref>

{{blockquote|No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united States in congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the united States, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.}}

In contrast, [[Enclave Clause|Article I, Section 8, Clause 16]] of the U.S. Constitution states:<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html |title=US Constitution |publisher=US Constitution |access-date=August 30, 2010 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100830022842/http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html |archive-date=August 30, 2010}}</ref>

{{blockquote|To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.}}

===Government tyranny===
A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. [[Theodore Sedgwick]] of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved{{nbsp}}... Is it possible{{nbsp}}... that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? Or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"<ref>{{cite book |last=Elliot |first=Jonathan |title=The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution |volume=2 |page=97 |edition=2nd |date=1863}}</ref> [[Noah Webster]] similarly argued:<ref name="emerson" /><ref>{{cite book |last=Webster |first=Noah |author-link=Noah Webster |title=An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution 1787, Reprinted in Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, Published During Its Discussion by the People, 1787–1788 |at=56 |editor-last=Ford |editor-first=Paul L. |date=1971 |orig-date=1888}}</ref>

{{blockquote|Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.}}

George Mason also argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of the British government's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them{{nbsp}}... by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.<ref name="emerson" /><ref>{{cite book |last=Elliot |first=Jonathan |title=The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution |volume=3 |page=425 |edition=3rd |date=1937}}</ref>

Writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, [[James Monroe]] included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.<ref>{{cite book |series=James Monroe Papers |publisher=New York Public Library |title=Miscellaneous Papers of James Monroe |author-link=James Monroe |last=Monroe |first=James}}</ref>

[[Patrick Henry]] argued in the Virginia ratification convention on June 5, 1788, for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:<ref>{{cite book |last=Henry |first=Patrick |author-link=Patrick Henry |chapter=Speech on the Federal Constitution |title=Virginia Ratifying Convention |date=1788}}</ref>

{{blockquote|Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.}}

===To maintain slavery===

====Preserving slave patrols====
[[File:Slave Patrol.jpg|300px|thumb|An illustration of Mississippi [[slave patrol]]]]

In the [[Slave states and free states|slave states]], the [[Slave patrol|militia]] was available for military operations, but its biggest function was to police the slaves.<ref name="20130117BlackMinnPost" /><ref>{{cite web |date=February 23, 2018 |title=The Second Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery |url=https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/second-amendment-ratified-preserve-slavery/ |access-date=November 22, 2021 |website=Raw Story – Celebrating 17 Years of Independent Journalism |archive-date=February 23, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180223041552/https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/second-amendment-ratified-preserve-slavery/ |url-status=live}}</ref> According to [[Carl T. Bogus|Dr Carl T. Bogus]], Professor of Law of the Roger Williams University Law School in Rhode Island,<ref name="20130117BlackMinnPost" /> the Second Amendment was written to assure the Southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by using its newly acquired constitutional authority over the militia to disarm the state militia and thereby destroy the South's principal instrument of slave control.<ref name="1998DavisLawReviewBOGUS" />
In his close analysis of [[James Madison]]'s writings, Bogus describes the South's obsession with militias during the ratification process:<ref name="1998DavisLawReviewBOGUS">{{cite web |last1=Bogus |first1=Carl. T. |title=The Hidden History of the Second Amendment. In: University of California at Davis Law Review 31 (1998): 309. |url=https://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm |work=Regents of the University of California and & Carl T. Bogus |publisher=Second Amendment Foundation |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20000816064706/https://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm |archive-date=August 16, 2000 |access-date=February 26, 2021}}</ref>

{{Blockquote|The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population. Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats.}}

This preoccupation is clearly expressed in 1788<ref name="1998DavisLawReviewBOGUS" /> by the slaveholder [[Patrick Henry]]:<ref name="20130117BlackMinnPost">{{cite news |last1=Black |first1=Eric |date=January 17, 2013 |title=Was the Second Amendment adopted for slaveholders ? |publisher=Minnpost |url=https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2013/01/was-second-amendment-adopted-slaveholders/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210216105109/https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2013/01/was-second-amendment-adopted-slaveholders/ |archive-date=February 16, 2021 |access-date=February 26, 2021}}</ref>
{{blockquote|If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress ... Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution; addition not mentioned in source], can call forth the militia.}}

Therefore, Bogus argues, in a compromise with the slave states, and to reassure Patrick Henry, [[George Mason]] and other slaveholders that they would be able to keep their slave control militias independent of the federal government, James Madison (also slave owner) redrafted the Second Amendment into its current form "for the specific purpose of assuring the Southern states, and particularly his constituents in Virginia, that the federal government would not undermine their security against slave insurrection by disarming the militia."<ref name="1998DavisLawReviewBOGUS" />

Legal historian [[Paul Finkelman]] argues that this scenario is implausible.<ref name="finkelman" /> Henry and Mason were political enemies of Madison's, and neither man was in Congress at the time Madison drafted Bill of Rights; moreover, Patrick Henry argued against the ratification of both the Constitution and the Second Amendment, and it was Henry's opposition that led Patrick's home state of Virginia to be the last to ratify.<ref name="finkelman" />

Most Southern white men between&nbsp;the ages of 18 and 45 were required to serve on "[[slave patrol]]s" which were organized groups of white men who enforced discipline upon enslaved blacks.<ref>{{cite book |last=Hadden |first=Sally E. |date=2001 |title=Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas |title-link=Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas |publisher=[[Harvard University Press]] |isbn=0674004701}}</ref> Bogus writes with respect to Georgia laws passed in 1755 and 1757 in this context: "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."<ref>{{cite web |last1=Bogus |first1=Carl T. |title=The Hidden History of the Second Amendment, at page 336. In: University of California at Davis Law Review 31 (1998): 309. |url=https://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm |publisher=Second Amendment Foundation |access-date=May 19, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20000816064706/https://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm |archive-date=August 16, 2000}}</ref><ref name="20180222RawStory">{{cite news |last=Hartmann |first=Thom |publisher=[[The Raw Story|Raw Story]] |date=February 22, 2018 |title=The Second Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery |url=https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/second-amendment-ratified-preserve-slavery |access-date=February 23, 2018 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180223041552/https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/second-amendment-ratified-preserve-slavery/ |archive-date=February 23, 2018}}</ref>{{Unreliable source?|date=May 2021|certain=yes}}

Finkelman recognises that James Madison "drafted an amendment to protect the right of the states to maintain their militias," but insists that "The amendment had nothing to do with state police powers, which were the basis of slave patrols."<ref name="finkelman" />

====To avoid arming free blacks====
Firstly, slave owners feared that enslaved blacks might be emancipated through military service. A few years earlier, there had been a precedent when [[John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore|Lord Dunmore]] offered freedom to slaves who escaped and joined his forces with "Liberty to Slaves" stitched onto their jacket pocket flaps.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hartmann |first1=Thom |title=The Hidden History of Guns and the Second Amendment |date=2019 |publisher=Berrett-Koehler Publishers |page=48}}</ref> Freed slaves also served in [[General Washington]]'s army.

Secondly, they also greatly feared "a ruinous slave rebellion in which their families would be slaughtered and their property destroyed." When Virginia ratified the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791, the [[Haitian Revolution]], a successful slave rebellion, was under way. The right to bear arms was therefore deliberately tied to membership in a militia by the slaveholder and chief drafter of the Amendment, [[James Madison]], because only whites could join militias in the South.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Picadio |first1=Anthony P. |date=January 2019 |title=The Right to Bear Arms a Disfavored Right |journal=Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly |url=https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5732643-The-Right-to-Bear-Arms-a-Disfavored-Right.html#document/p1 |pages=16–23 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20210111181900/https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5732643-The-Right-to-Bear-Arms-a-Disfavored-Right.html |archive-date=January 11, 2021}}</ref>

In 1776, [[Thomas Jefferson]] had submitted a draft constitution for Virginia that said "no freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements". According to Picadio, this version was rejected because "it would have given to free blacks the constitutional right to have firearms".<ref name="20190210PittsburghPostGazetteO'Neill"/>

==Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights==
[[James Madison]]'s initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:<ref name="aoc-p451">{{cite web |last=Madison |first=James |author-link=James Madison |date=June 8, 1789 |url=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=227 |title=Gales & Seaton's History of Debates in Congress |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110111095149/http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001%2Fllac001.db&recNum=227 |archive-date=2011-01-11 |series=Amendments to the Constitution 1st Congress, 1st Session |department=House of Representatives |pages=451}}</ref>

{{blockquote |The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country:<!-- Yes, the imaged page shows a colon here. --> but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.}}

On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his bill and proposed that a [[Select or special committee (United States Congress)|select committee]] be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhj&fileName=001/llhj001.db&recNum=62&itemLink=r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(hj001114))%230010063&linkText=1 |title=Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150904025505/http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhj&fileName=001%2Fllhj001.db&recNum=62&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID+%40lit%28hj001114%29%29%230010063&linkText=1 |archive-date=September 4, 2015 |volume=1 |page=64}}</ref> and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=351 |title=Annals of Congress |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150904025505/http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001%2Fllac001.db&recNum=351 |archive-date=September 4, 2015 |department=House of Representatives |at=1st Congress, 1st Session, page 669}}</ref> On August 17, that version was read into the ''Journal'':<ref>{{cite web |url=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=390 |title=Annals of Congress |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110110103429/http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001%2Fllac001.db&recNum=390 |archive-date=2011-01-10 |department=House of Representatives |at=1st Congress, 1st Session, page 778}}</ref>
{{blockquote |A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.}}

In late August 1789, the House debated and modified the Second Amendment. These debates revolved primarily around the risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as British forces had attempted to destroy the Patriot militia at the commencement of the [[American Revolution]]. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:
{{blockquote |A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.}}

The next day, August 25, the Senate received the amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. However, the Senate [[scribe]] added a comma before "shall not be infringed" and changed the semicolon separating that phrase from the religious exemption portion to a comma:<ref>{{cite web |url=http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=001/llsj001.db&recNum=60&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID%2B%40lit%28sj001133%29%29%230010075&linkText=1 |title=Journal of the Senate of the United States of America |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170126031744/http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=001%2Fllsj001.db&recNum=60&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID%2B%40lit%28sj001133%29%29%230010075&linkText=1 |archive-date=2017-01-26 |volume=1 |pages=63–64}}</ref>
{{blockquote |A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.}}

By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to "be passed upon distinctly by the States".<ref>Letter from [[Roger Sherman]] to [[Simeon Baldwin]] (August 22, 1789) qtd. in Bickford, et al., p. 16 ''See also'' letter from [[James Madison]] to [[Alexander White (Virginia)|Alexander White]] (August 24, 1789) qtd. in Madison, ''Writings'', pp. 418–19.</ref> On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:<ref>{{cite web |url=http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=001/llsj001.db&recNum=68&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID%2B%40lit%28sj001133%29%29%230010075&linkText=1 |title=Journal of the Senate of the United States of America |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161219044720/http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=001%2Fllsj001.db&recNum=68&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID%2B%40lit%28sj001133%29%29%230010075&linkText=1 |archive-date=2016-12-19 |volume=1 |page=71}}</ref>
{{blockquote |A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.}}

The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated. A motion passed to replace the words "the best", and insert in lieu thereof "necessary to the" .<ref>{{cite web |url=http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=001/llsj001.db&recNum=74&itemLink=r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(sj001133))%230010075&linkText=1 |title=Journal of the Senate of the United States of America |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150904025505/http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=001%2Fllsj001.db&recNum=74&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID+%40lit%28sj001133%29%29%230010075&linkText=1 |archive-date=September 4, 2015 |volume=1 |page=77}}</ref> The Senate then slightly modified the language to read as the fourth article and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version by the Senate was amended to read as:
{{blockquote |A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.}}

The House voted on September 21, 1789, to accept the changes made by the Senate.

The enrolled original Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 25, 1789, on permanent display in the Rotunda, reads as:<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript |title=The Bill of Rights: A Transcription |date=November 4, 2015 |access-date=May 23, 2018 |archive-date=January 30, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220130103948/https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript |url-status=live}}</ref>
{{blockquote |A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.}}

On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states, having been ratified as a group by all the fourteen states then in existence except Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Georgia{{snd}}which added ratifications in 1939.<ref>{{cite web |title=Amendments to the Constitution of the United States |location=Washington, DC |publisher=Government Printing Office |url=https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-7.pdf |access-date=April 3, 2018 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180128203224/https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-7.pdf |archive-date=January 28, 2018}}</ref>

==Militia following ratification==
[[File:Ketland1.jpg|right|thumb |Ketland brass barrel smooth bore pistol, common in Colonial America]]

During the first two decades following the ratification of the Second Amendment, public opposition to standing armies, among Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike, persisted and manifested itself locally as a general reluctance to create a professional armed police force, instead relying on county sheriffs, constables and night watchmen to enforce local ordinances.<ref name="DeConde2001" /> Though sometimes compensated, often these positions were unpaid{{snd}}held as a matter of civic duty. In these early decades, law enforcement officers were rarely armed with firearms, using [[Baton (law enforcement)|billy clubs]] as their sole defensive weapons.<ref name="DeConde2001" /> In serious emergencies, a ''[[Posse comitatus (common law)|posse comitatus]]'', militia company, or group of [[vigilante]]s assumed law enforcement duties; these individuals were more likely than the local sheriff to be armed with firearms.<ref name="DeConde2001" />

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:<ref name="1Stat272" />
{{blockquote |[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia{{nbsp}}... [and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good [[musket]] or [[Lock (firearm)|firelock]], a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.}}

The act also gave specific instructions to domestic weapon manufacturers "that from and after five years from the passing of this act, muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound."<ref name="1Stat272">{{cite web |website=A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation |series=U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875 |title=Statutes at Large |at=2nd Congress, 1st Session, 1&nbsp;Stat.&nbsp;272 |url=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=394 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110112183204/http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001%2Fllsl001.db&recNum=394 |archive-date=January 12, 2011}}</ref> In practice, private acquisition and maintenance of rifles and muskets meeting specifications and readily available for militia duty proved problematic; estimates of compliance ranged from 10 to 65&nbsp;percent.<ref name="isbn0-8223-3017-2 pg294">Merkel and Uviller, pp.&nbsp;293–294.</ref> Compliance with the enrollment provisions was also poor. In addition to the exemptions granted by the law for custom-house officers and their clerks, post-officers and stage drivers employed in the care and conveyance of U.S. mail, ferrymen, export inspectors, pilots, merchant mariners and those deployed at sea in active service; state legislatures granted numerous exemptions under Section&nbsp;2 of the Act, including exemptions for: clergy, conscientious objectors, teachers, students, and jurors. Though a number of able-bodied white men remained available for service, many simply did not show up for militia duty. Penalties for failure to appear were enforced sporadically and selectively.<ref name="isbn0-8223-3017-2 pg120" /> None is mentioned in the legislation.<ref name="1Stat272" />

The first test of the militia system occurred in July 1794, when a group of disaffected [[Whiskey Rebellion|Pennsylvania farmers rebelled]] against federal tax collectors whom they viewed as illegitimate tools of tyrannical power.<ref name="isbn0-87023-295-9">Szatmary, p.&nbsp;107.</ref> Attempts by the four adjoining states to raise a militia for nationalization to suppress the insurrection proved inadequate. When officials resorted to drafting men, they faced bitter resistance. Forthcoming soldiers consisted primarily of draftees or paid substitutes as well as poor enlistees lured by enlistment bonuses. The officers, however, were of a higher quality, responding out of a sense of civic duty and patriotism, and generally critical of the rank and file.<ref name="DeConde2001" /> Most of the 13,000 soldiers lacked the required weaponry; the war department provided nearly two-thirds of them with guns.<ref name="DeConde2001" /> In October, President [[George Washington]] and General [[Henry Lee III|Harry Lee]] marched on the 7,000&nbsp;rebels who conceded without fighting. The episode provoked criticism of the citizen militia and inspired calls for a universal militia. Secretary of War [[Henry Knox]] and Vice President [[John Adams]] had lobbied Congress to establish federal armories to stock imported weapons and encourage domestic production.<ref name="DeConde2001" /> Congress did subsequently pass "[a]n act for the erecting and repairing of Arsenals and Magazines" on April 2, 1794, two months prior to the insurrection.<ref>{{cite web |website=A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation |series=U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875 |title=Statutes at Large |at=3rd Congress, 1st Session, 1&nbsp;Stat.&nbsp;351 |url=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=475 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150904025505/http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001%2Fllsl001.db&recNum=475 |archive-date=September 4, 2015}}</ref> Nevertheless, the militia continued to deteriorate and twenty years later, the militia's poor condition contributed to several losses in the [[War of 1812]], including the [[Burning of Washington|sacking of Washington, D.C.]], and the burning of the White House in 1814.<ref name="isbn0-8223-3017-2 pg120">Merkel and Uviller, p.&nbsp;12.</ref>

In the 20th century, Congress passed the [[Militia Act of 1903]]. The act defined the militia as every able-bodied male aged 18 to 44 who was a citizen or intended to become one. The militia was then divided by the act into the [[United States National Guard]] and the unorganized Reserve Militia.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Public Acts of the Fifty-Seventh Congress of the United States |journal=United States Statutes at Large |date=1903 |volume=32 |pages=775–780 |url=https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/57th-congress/session-2/c57s2ch196.pdf |access-date=August 12, 2020 |archive-date=August 25, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200825235524/https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/57th-congress/session-2/c57s2ch196.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Parker |first1=James |title=The Militia Act of 1903 |journal=The North American Review |date=August 1903 |volume=177 |issue=561 |pages=278–287 |jstor=25119439}}</ref>

Federal law continues to define the militia as all able-bodied males aged 17 to 44, who are citizens or intend to become one, and female citizens who are members of the National Guard. The militia is divided into the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and [[Naval Militia]], and the unorganized militia.<ref>{{cite web |title=§246. Militia: composition and classes |url=https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section246&num=0&edition=prelim |website=house.gov |publisher=United States House of Representatives |access-date=August 12, 2020 |archive-date=September 14, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200914180419/https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section246&num=0&edition=prelim |url-status=live}}</ref>

==Scholarly commentary==
===Early commentary===
{{multiple image |direction=horizontal |footer=[[William Rawle]] of Pennsylvania (left) was a lawyer and district attorney; [[Thomas M. Cooley]] of Michigan (right) was an educator and judge. |footer_align=left |image1=WilliamRawle.jpg |width1=136 |image2=Thomas M Cooley.jpg |width2=126}}
{{multiple image |direction=horizontal |footer=[[Joseph Story]] of Massachusetts (left) became a U.S. Supreme Court justice; [[Tench Coxe]] of Pennsylvania (right) was a [[political economy|political economist]] and delegate to the [[Continental Congress]]. |footer_align=left |image1=Joseph Story.jpg |width1=132 |image2=Tench Coxe.JPG |width2=121}}

====The "Federal Farmer"====
In May 1788, the pseudonymous author "[[Federal Farmer]]" (his real identity is presumed to be either [[Richard Henry Lee]] or [[Melancton Smith]]) wrote in ''Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer #169'' or ''Letter XVIII'' regarding the definition of a "militia":
{{blockquote |A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary.}}

====George Mason====
In June 1788, [[George Mason]] [[q:George Mason|addressed]] the Virginia Ratifying Convention regarding a "militia:"
{{blockquote |A worthy member has asked, who are the militia, if they be not the people, of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c. by our representation? I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government all ranks of people are subject to militia duty.}}

====Tench Coxe====
In 1792, [[Tench Coxe]] made the following point in a commentary on the Second Amendment:<ref>"Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution", ''Federal Gazette'', June 18, 1792, at 2, col. 1</ref><ref name="guncite">{{cite web |url=http://guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html |title=A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment |last=Reynolds |first=Glenn Harlan |website=GunCite.com |access-date=September 23, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140605114539/http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html |archive-date=June 5, 2014}}</ref><ref name="Halbrook1998" />

{{Blockquote |As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.}}

====Tucker/Blackstone====
The earliest published commentary on the Second Amendment by a major constitutional theorist was by [[St. George Tucker]]. He annotated a five-volume edition of [[Sir William Blackstone]]'s ''[[Commentaries on the Laws of England]]'', a critical legal reference for early American attorneys published in 1803.<ref name="tucker">Tucker, p.&nbsp;490</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century |last=Kopel |first=David B. |url=http://davidkopel.com/2A/LawRev/19thcentury.htm |publisher=Second Amendment Project |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060525002016/http://davidkopel.com/2A/LawRev/19thcentury.htm |archive-date=May 25, 2006}}</ref> Tucker wrote:<ref name="BlackstoneTucker1803">{{cite book |last1=Blackstone |first1=Sir William |last2=Tucker |first2=St. George |last3=Christian |first3=Edward |title=Blackstone's Commentaries: With notes of reference, to the Constitution and Laws, of the Federal Government of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NTQ0AQAAMAAJ |access-date=July 5, 2013 |date=1803 |publisher=William Young Birch, and Abraham Small}}</ref>
{{blockquote |A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4. This may be considered as the true [[Palladium (protective image)|palladium]] of liberty{{nbsp}}... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: In most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game : a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.}}

In footnotes 40 and 41 of the ''Commentaries'', Tucker stated that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment was not subject to the restrictions that were part of English law: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government" and "whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England." Blackstone himself also commented on English game laws, Vol. II, p.&nbsp;412, "that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws."<ref name="tucker" /> Blackstone discussed the right of [[self-defense]] in a separate section of his treatise on the common law of crimes. Tucker's annotations for that latter section did not mention the Second Amendment but cited the standard works of [[English people|English]] jurists such as [[Hawkins' Treatise of Pleas of the Crown|Hawkins]].{{efn|For two radically different views of Blackstone on the Second Amendment, see Heyman, Chicago-Kent, and Volokh, "Senate Testimony".}}

Further, Tucker criticized the [[Bill of Rights 1689|English Bill of Rights]] for limiting gun ownership to the very wealthy, leaving the populace effectively disarmed, and expressed the hope that Americans "never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty."<ref name="tucker" />

====William Rawle====
Tucker's commentary was soon followed, in 1825, by that of [[William Rawle]] in his landmark text ''A View of the Constitution of the United States of America''. Like Tucker, Rawle condemned England's "arbitrary code for the preservation of game", portraying that country as one that "boasts so much of its freedom", yet provides a right to "protestant subjects only" that it "cautiously describ[es] to be that of bearing arms for their defence" and reserves for "[a] very small proportion of the people[.]"{{sfn|Rawle|1829|p=126}}{{sfn|Rawle|1825|p=122}} In contrast, Rawle characterizes the second clause of the Second Amendment, which he calls the corollary clause, as a general prohibition against such capricious abuse of government power.

Speaking of the Second Amendment generally, Rawle wrote:{{sfn|Rawle|1829|pp=125-126}}<ref>{{harvtxt|Rawle|1825|p=122}} Preceded by "The people of each state, by the amended constitution, pledge themselves to each other for the sacred preservation of certain detailed principles, without which the republican form of government would be impure and weak. ...

The first is a declaration that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable, yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.

The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (pp. 121-122)</ref>
{{blockquote |The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.}}

Rawle, long before the concept of [[Incorporation of the Bill of Rights|incorporation]] was formally recognized by the courts, or Congress drafted the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], contended that citizens could appeal to the Second Amendment should either the state or federal government attempt to disarm them. He did warn, however, that "this right [to bear arms] ought not{{nbsp}}... be abused to the disturbance of the public peace" and, paraphrasing [[Edward Coke|Coke]], observed: "An assemblage of persons with arms, for unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace."{{sfn|Rawle|1829|p=126}}{{sfn|Rawle|1825|p=123}}

====Joseph Story====
[[Joseph Story]] articulated in his influential ''Commentaries on the Constitution''<ref>{{cite book |first=Joseph |last=Story |author-link=Joseph Story |title=A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States: Containing a brief commentary on every clause, explaining the true nature, reasons, and objects thereof |date=1833}}</ref> the orthodox view of the Second Amendment, which he viewed as the amendment's clear meaning:<ref name="Story1865">{{cite book |last=Story |first=Joseph |title=A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States: Containing a Brief Commentary on Every Clause, Explaining the True Nature, Reasons, and Objects Thereof |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=igBMBAFMgcIC |access-date=July 5, 2013 |date=1865 |publisher=The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd |isbn=978-1886363717 |quote=The next amendment is, 'A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia. The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men. §&nbsp;451. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights.}}</ref><ref name="Story" />
{{blockquote |The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights.}}

Story describes a militia as the "natural defence of a free country", both against foreign foes, domestic revolts and usurpation by rulers. The book regards the militia as a "moral check" against both usurpation and the arbitrary use of power, while expressing distress at the growing indifference of the American people to maintaining such an organized militia, which could lead to the undermining of the protection of the Second Amendment.<ref name="Story">{{cite book |last=Story |first=Joseph |date=1833 |title=Commentaries on the U.S. Constitution |at=§1890 |url=https://archive.org/details/afamiliarexposi00storgoog |quote=natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions. |publisher=Harper & Brothers}}</ref>

====Lysander Spooner====
[[Antislavery Movement In America|Abolitionist]] [[Lysander Spooner]], commenting on bills of rights, stated that the object of all bills of rights is to assert the rights of individuals against the government and that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was in support of the [[right to resist]] government oppression, as the only security against the tyranny of government lies in forcible resistance to injustice, for injustice will certainly be executed, unless forcibly resisted.<ref>Spooner, pp.&nbsp;17–18.</ref> Spooner's theory provided the intellectual foundation for [[John Brown (abolitionist)|John Brown]] and other radical abolitionists who believed that arming slaves was not only morally justified, but entirely consistent with the Second Amendment.<ref>Renehan, pp.&nbsp;172–74.</ref> An express connection between this right and the Second Amendment was drawn by Lysander Spooner who commented that a "right of resistance" is protected by both the right to [[Jury trial|trial by jury]] and the Second Amendment.<ref>Spooner, p.&nbsp;17.</ref>

The congressional debate on the proposed Fourteenth Amendment concentrated on what the [[Southern United States|Southern States]] were doing to harm the newly freed slaves, including disarming the former slaves.<ref>Cramer, p. ?{{page needed |date=February 2011}}</ref>

====Timothy Farrar====
In 1867, Judge Timothy Farrar published his ''Manual of the Constitution of the United States of America'', which was written when the Fourteenth Amendment was "in the process of adoption by the State legislatures":<ref name="Halbrook1998" /><ref>{{cite book |last=Farrar |first=Timothy |title=Manual of the Constitution of the United States of America |url=https://archive.org/details/cu31924030455152 |access-date=July 6, 2013 |date=1872 |publisher=Little, Brown |at=§&nbsp;34 |quote=The people of the United States, in making their Constitution, do not create or confer on themselves any new rights, but they expressly reserve all the rights they then held, except what were delegated for their own benefit; and they particularly and expressly recognize and perpetuate many natural and civil common-law rights, which, of course, are placed beyond the reach of any subordinate government, and even of their own. Among these are the following: 1. The right to be, what they call themselves, 'the people of the United States', citizens, and component members of the body politic{{snd}}the nation; and to participate in all the privileges, immunities, and benefits the Constitution was designed to obtain or secure for all the American people, especially the right to be protected and governed according to the provisions of the Constitution. 2. A right to the privileges and immunities of citizens in any of the several States. Among these is the fundamental and elementary right of suffrage. The Representatives to the national and State legislatures must be chosen by the people, the citizens (Section 2). Consequently, the citizens must choose them, and have a right to choose them. Am.&nbsp;14, §&nbsp;2. 3. A right to the common-law writ of habeas corpus, to protect the other common-law right, as well as natural and constitutional right, of personal liberty. 4. A right to trial by jury in any criminal case. 5. A right to keep and bear arms. 6. A right to life, liberty, and property, unless deprived by due process of law. 7. A right to just compensation for private property legally taken for public use. 8. A right to participate in all rights retained by, or reserved to, the people. Most of these rights, with many others, belong by the Constitution not only to the citizens{{snd}}the people of the United States, strictly so called, by reason of the franchise of natural birth or otherwise{{snd}}but also to all persons who may be allowed to be and remain under the jurisdiction and protection of our government. These are a part only of the rights held by every member of the nation, under and by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, independent of any other earthly power, and which, of course, 'cannot be destroyed or abridged by the laws of any particular State'. Who, then, in the United States is destitute of rights?{{nbsp}}... The States are recognized as governments, and, when their own constitutions permit, may do as they please; provided they do not interfere with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or with the civil or natural rights of the people recognized thereby, and held in conformity to them. The right of every person to 'life, liberty, and property', to 'keep and bear arms', to the 'writ of habeas corpus' to 'trial by jury', and divers others, are recognized by, and held under, the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be infringed by individuals or even by the government itself.}}</ref>

{{blockquote |The States are recognized as governments, and, when their own constitutions permit, may do as they please; provided they do not interfere with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or with the civil or natural rights of the people recognized thereby, and held in conformity to them. The right of every person to "life, liberty, and property", to "keep and bear arms", to the "writ of habeas corpus" to "trial by jury", and divers others, are recognized by, and held under, the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be infringed by individuals or even by the government itself.}}

====Judge Thomas Cooley====

Judge [[Thomas M. Cooley]], perhaps the most widely read constitutional scholar of the nineteenth century, wrote extensively about this amendment,<ref>{{cite journal |first=Thomas M. |last=Cooley |url=http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2069&context=articles#page=6 |title=The Abnegation of Self-Government |journal=Princeton Review |pages=213–214 |date=November 1883 |publisher=University of Michigan Law School |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160821120953/http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2069&context=articles#page=6 |archive-date=August 21, 2016}}</ref><ref name="Cooley1871">{{cite book |last=Cooley |first=Thomas McIntyre |title=A treatise on the constitutional limitations which rest upon the legislative power of the states of the American union |page=381 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=keM9AAAAIAAJ&pg=381 |date=1871 |publisher=Little, Brown and company |access-date=June 6, 2016 |archive-date=May 11, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240511151725/https://books.google.com/books?id=keM9AAAAIAAJ&pg=381#v=onepage&q&f=false |url-status=live}}</ref> and he explained in 1880 how the Second Amendment protected the "right of the people":<ref name="Cooley1880">{{cite book |last=Cooley |first=Thomas McIntyre |title=The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bU4oAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA271 |date=1880 |publisher=F.B. Rothman |page=271 |isbn=978-0837704340 |access-date=June 6, 2016 |archive-date=May 11, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240511151538/https://books.google.com/books?id=bU4oAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA271#v=onepage&q&f=false |url-status=live}}</ref>

{{blockquote|It might be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well-regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.}}

===Commentary since late 20th century===
[[File:Handgun collection.JPG|thumb|Assortment of 20th century handguns]]

Until the late 20th century, there was little scholarly commentary of the Second Amendment.<ref>Garry Wills, ''A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government'', Simon and Schuster, 1999, p. 252. ("Until recently, the Second Amendment was a little-visited area of the Constitution. A two thousand-page commentary on the Constitution put out by the Library of Congress in 1973 has copious annotation for most clauses, but less than a page and a half for the Second Amendment.")</ref> In the latter half of the 20th century, there was considerable debate over whether the Second Amendment protected an [[Individual and group rights|individual right or a collective right]].<ref name="rkba1982">{{cite book |title=Right to Keep and Bear Arms |department=U.S. Senate |date=2001 |publisher=Paladin Press |isbn=1581602545}}</ref> The debate centered on whether the prefatory clause ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State") declared the amendment's only purpose or merely announced a purpose to introduce the operative clause ("the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). Scholars advanced three competing theoretical models for how the prefatory clause should be interpreted.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1332436.html |title=United States v. Emerson |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120817113421/https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1332436.html |archive-date=August 17, 2012 |at=270 F.3d 203, 218–19 (5th Cir. 2001)}}</ref>

The first, known as the "[[states' rights]]" or "collective right" model, held that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals; rather, it recognizes the right of each state to arm its militia. Under this approach, citizens "have no right to keep or bear arms, but the states have a collective right to have the National Guard".<ref name="Halbrook1998">{{cite book |last=Halbrook |first=Stephen P. |title=Freedmen, the 14th Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866–1876 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0Pt2rd3ww32IC |access-date=March 19, 2013 |date=1998 |publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group |isbn=978-0275963316}}</ref> Advocates of collective rights models argued that the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming state militias, rather than to secure an individual right to possess firearms.<ref name="Klukowski 2008">{{cite journal |first=Kenneth A. |last=Klukowski |title=Armed by Right: The emerging jurisprudence of the Second Amendment |volume=18 |journal=George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal |pages=167, 176 |date=2008 |quote=Advocates of the collective theories posit that the Second Amendment was written out of fear that the new central government would disarm state militias needed for local defense. Under any sort of collective theory, the government could completely ban all firearm ownership whatsoever.}}</ref> Prior to 2001, every circuit court decision that interpreted the Second Amendment endorsed the "collective right" model.<ref>{{cite journal |first=George A. |last=Mocsary |title=Explaining away the Obvious: The infusibility of characterizing the Second Amendment as a nonindividual right |volume=76 |journal=Fordham Law Review |pages=2113, 2133 |date=2008 |quote=Up until 2001, every federal circuit court of appeals that ruled on the issue had adopted the collective right approach.}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |first=Kenneth A. |last=Klukowski |title=Citizen Gun Rights: Incorporating the Second Amendment through the privileges or immunities clause |volume=39 |journal=New Mexico Law Review |pages=195, 199–200 |date=2009}}</ref> However, beginning with the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|Fifth Circuit]]'s opinion ''United States v. Emerson'' in 2001, some circuit courts recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.<ref>{{cite journal |first=George A. |last=Mocsary |title=Explaining away the Obvious: The infusibility of characterizing the Second Amendment as a nonindividual right |volume=76 |journal=Fordham Law Review |pages=2113, 2133–2134 |date=2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Silveira v. Lockyer |id=312 F.3d 1052, 1087 |publisher=9th Circuit Court of Appeal |date=2002 |quote=cf. for a ruling that endorses the collective rights model}}</ref>

The second, known as the "sophisticated collective right model", held that the Second Amendment recognizes some limited individual right. However, this individual right could be exercised only by actively participating members of a functioning, organized state militia.<ref name="Barnett2004">{{cite book |last=Barnett |first=Randy E. |title=Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Militia? |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=T31NGwAACAAJ |access-date=March 21, 2013 |date=2004 |archive-date=May 11, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240511151534/https://books.google.com/books?id=T31NGwAACAAJ |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Klukowski 2008" /> Some scholars have argued that the "sophisticated collective rights model" is, in fact, the functional equivalent of the "collective rights model".<ref>George A. Mocsary, ''Explaining Away the Obvious: The Infusibility of Characterizing the Second Amendment as a Nonindividual Right'', 76 ''Fordham Law Review'' 2113, 2133 (2008).</ref> Other commentators have observed that prior to ''Emerson'', five circuit courts specifically endorsed the "sophisticated collective right model".<ref>Kenneth A. Klukowski, ''Citizen Gun Rights: Incorporating the Second Amendment Through the Privileges or Immunities Clause'', 39 ''New Mexico Law Review'' 195, 200 (2009) (citing ''United States v. Wright'', 117 F.3d 1265, 1273–74 (11th Cir. 1997); ''United States v. Rybar'', 103 F.3d 273, 286 (3d Cir. 1996); ''United States v. Hale'', 978 F.2d 1016, 1020 (8th Cir. 1992); ''United States v. Oakes'', 564 F.2d 384, 387 (10th Cir. 1977); ''Cases v. United States'', 131 F.2d 916, 923 (1st Cir. 1942)).</ref>

The third, known as the "standard model", held that the Second Amendment recognized the personal right of individuals to keep and bear arms.<ref name="Halbrook1998" /> Supporters of this model argued that "although the first clause may describe a general purpose for the amendment, the second clause is controlling and therefore the amendment confers an individual right 'of the people' to keep and bear arms".<ref>{{cite journal |last=Hernaez |first=Dorothy J. |title=''Parker v. District of Columbia'': Understanding the Broader Implications for the Future of Gun Control |journal=Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy |volume=6 |pages=693, 696 |date=2008}}</ref> Additionally, scholars who favored this model argued the "absence of founding-era militias mentioned in the Amendment's preamble does not render it a 'dead letter' because the preamble is a 'philosophical declaration' safeguarding militias and is but one of multiple 'civic purposes' for which the Amendment was enacted".<ref>George A. Mocsary, "Explaining Away the Obvious: The Infusibility of Characterizing the Second Amendment as a Nonindividual Right", 76 ''Fordham Law Review'' 2113, 2134 (2008).</ref>

The question of a collective right versus an individual right was progressively resolved in favor of the individual rights model, beginning with the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|Fifth Circuit]] ruling in ''[[United States v. Emerson]]'' (2001), along with the Supreme Court's rulings in ''District of Columbia v. Heller'' (2008), and ''McDonald v. Chicago'' (2010). In ''Heller'', the Supreme Court resolved any remaining [[circuit split]]s by ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.<ref name="isbn1-933995-17-3">Shapiro, p. 148.</ref> Although the Second Amendment is the only Constitutional amendment with a prefatory clause, such linguistic constructions were widely used elsewhere in the late eighteenth century.<ref name="Volokh1998">Volokh, "Commonplace", p. 793. "The Second Amendment is widely seen as quite unusual, because it has a justification clause as well as an operative clause. Professor Volokh points out that this structure was actually quite commonplace in American constitutions of the Framing era: State Bills of Rights contained justification clauses for many of the rights they secured."</ref>

[[Warren E. Burger]], a conservative Republican appointed [[Chief Justice of the United States|chief justice of the United States]] by President Richard Nixon, wrote in 1990 following his retirement:<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WbCtN0pGS2IC&pg=PA378 |title=Elements of Argument: A Text and Reader |first1=Annette T. |last1=Rottenberg |first2=Donna Haisty |last2=Winchell |date=2011 |publisher=Macmillan |access-date=May 23, 2018 |via=Google Books |isbn=978-0312646998 |archive-date=May 11, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240511151559/https://books.google.com/books?id=WbCtN0pGS2IC&pg=PA378#v=onepage&q&f=false |url-status=live}}</ref>
{{blockquote|The Constitution of the United States, in its Second Amendment, guarantees a "right of the people to keep and bear arms". However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood except by looking to the purpose, the setting and the objectives of the draftsmen{{nbsp}}... People of that day were apprehensive about the new "monster" national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment{{nbsp}}... We see that the need for a state militia was the predicate of the "right" guaranteed; in short, it was declared "necessary" in order to have a state military force to protect the security of the state.}}

And in 1991, Burger stated:<ref>{{cite web |last=Staheli |first=Frank |title=Warren Burger '2nd Amendment Fraud' |work=PBS News Hour |orig-date=1991 |date=August 28, 2016 |publisher=[[PBS]] |access-date=May 23, 2018 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eya_k4P-iEo |via=YouTube |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/Eya_k4P-iEo |archive-date=2021-12-11 |url-status=live}}{{cbignore}}</ref>
{{blockquote|If I were writing the Bill of Rights now, there wouldn't be any such thing as the Second Amendment{{nbsp}}... that a well regulated militia being necessary for the defense of the state, the peoples' rights to bear arms. This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud{{snd}}I repeat the word 'fraud'{{snd}}on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.}}

In a 1992 opinion piece, six former American attorneys general wrote:<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/10/03/its-time-to-pass-the-brady-bill/318af389-6147-4d91-92e2-bf53ff0ab51e/ |title=It's Time to Pass the Brady Bill |date=October 3, 1992 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |access-date=May 23, 2018 |archive-date=May 24, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180524151335/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/10/03/its-time-to-pass-the-brady-bill/318af389-6147-4d91-92e2-bf53ff0ab51e/ |url-status=live}}</ref>
{{blockquote|For more than 200 years, the federal courts have unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organized state militia; it does not guarantee immediate access to guns for private purposes. The nation can no longer afford to let the gun lobby's distortion of the Constitution cripple every reasonable attempt to implement an effective national policy toward guns and crime.}}

Research by [[Robert Spitzer (political scientist)|Robert Spitzer]] found that every law journal article discussing the Second Amendment through 1959 "reflected the Second Amendment affects citizens only in connection with citizen service in a government organized
and regulated militia." Only beginning in 1960 did law journal articles begin to advocate an "individualist" view of gun ownership rights.<ref>{{cite journal |format=PDF |url=https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3294&context=cklawreview |first=Robert J. |last=Spitzer |journal=Chicago-Kent Law Review |title=Lost and Found: Researching the Second Amendment |publisher=IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law |date=October 2000 |volume=76 |issue=10 |pages=349–401 |access-date=May 27, 2018 |archive-date=May 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180525063139/https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3294&context=cklawreview |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment |title=How the NRA rewrote the Second Amendment |publisher=Brennan Center for Justice |access-date=May 24, 2018 |archive-date=September 24, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230924130003/https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment |url-status=live}}</ref> The opposite of this "individualist" view of gun ownership rights is the "collective-right" theory, according to which the amendment protects a collective right of states to maintain militias or an individual right to keep and bear arms in connection with service in a militia (for this view see for example the [[#Meaning of "well regulated militia"|quote of Justice John Paul Stevens in the Meaning of "well regulated militia" section below]]).<ref name="Sevens dissent" /> In his book, ''Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution'', Justice John Paul Stevens for example submits the following revised Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed."<ref>{{cite web |date=April 26, 2014 |title=Justice Stevens: Six Little Ways to Change the Constitution |url=https://www.npr.org/2014/04/26/306837618/justice-stevens-six-little-ways-to-change-the-constitution |access-date=June 11, 2020 |website=[[NPR]] |archive-date=June 17, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200617020205/https://www.npr.org/2014/04/26/306837618/justice-stevens-six-little-ways-to-change-the-constitution |url-status=live}}</ref>

===Meaning of "well regulated militia"===
An early use of the phrase "well-regulated militia" may be found in [[Andrew Fletcher (patriot)|Andrew Fletcher]]'s 1698 ''A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias'', as well as the phrase "ordinary and ill-regulated militia".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Fletcher |first=Andrew |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kyQJAAAAQAAJ |title=A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias |date=1698 |publisher=J. Bettenham |location=Edinburgh |access-date=March 22, 2023 |archive-date=April 8, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230408091606/https://books.google.com/books?id=kyQJAAAAQAAJ |url-status=live}}</ref> Fletcher meant "regular" in the sense of regular military, and advocated the universal conscription and regular training of men of fighting age. Jefferson thought well of Fletcher, commenting that "the political principles of that patriot were worthy the purest periods of the British constitution. They are those which were in vigour."<ref>{{cite letter |first=Thomas |last=Jefferson |author-link=Thomas Jefferson |recipient=The Earl of Buchan |date=July 10, 1803 |url=https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-40-02-0534 |access-date=May 26, 2020 |title=From Thomas Jefferson to the Earl of Buchan, 10 July 1803}}</ref>

The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".<ref name="Merkel361">Merkel, p. 361. "Well-regulated meant well trained, rather than subject to rules and regulations."</ref> In ''Heller'', the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."<ref name="ReferenceA">''Heller'', Opinion of the Court, Part II-A-2.</ref>

In the year before the drafting of the Second Amendment, in [[Federalist No. 29]] ("On the Militia"), Alexander Hamilton wrote the following about "organizing", "disciplining", "arming", and "training" of the militia as specified in the [[enumerated powers]]:<ref name="FederalistPapers29" />

{{blockquote |If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security{{nbsp}}... confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority{{nbsp}}... [but] reserving to the states{{nbsp}}... the authority of training the militia{{nbsp}}... A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the [[yeomanry]], and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss{{nbsp}}... Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the People at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.}}

{{anchor|scalianunn}}Justice Scalia, writing for the Court in ''Heller'':<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html |title=Scalia in Heller |access-date=March 25, 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130318012022/http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html |archive-date=March 18, 2013}}</ref>
{{blockquote |In ''[[Nunn v. Georgia|Nunn v. State]]'', 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the [[Supreme Court of Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia Supreme Court]] construed the Second Amendment as protecting the 'natural right of self-defence' and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right".&nbsp;... Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right.}}

Justice Stevens in dissent:<ref name="Sevens dissent">{{cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html |title=Stevens' dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller (No. 07-290) |access-date=March 25, 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130310033731/http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html |archive-date=March 10, 2013}}</ref>
{{blockquote |When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms. Even if the meaning of the text were genuinely susceptible to more than one interpretation, the burden would remain on those advocating a departure from the purpose identified in the preamble and from settled law to come forward with persuasive new arguments or evidence. The textual analysis offered by respondent and embraced by the Court falls far short of sustaining that heavy burden. And the Court's emphatic reliance on the claim "that the Second Amendment{{nbsp}} ... codified a pre-existing right," ante, at 19 [refers to p. 19 of the opinion], is of course beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms for service in a state militia was also a pre-existing right.}}

===Meaning of "the right of the People"===
Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], writing for the majority in ''Heller'', stated:

{{blockquote |Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention "the people", the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase "the militia" in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the "militia" in colonial America consisted of a subset of "the people"{{snd}}those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as "the people".<ref name="District of Columbia v Heller">{{cite web |url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/opinion.html |title=District of Columbia v Heller |website=Supreme.Justia.com |access-date=August 30, 2010 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101019040534/http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/opinion.html |archive-date=October 19, 2010}}</ref>}}

Scalia further specifies who holds this right:<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Scalia |first1=Antonin |title=District of Columbia et al. v. Heller |journal=United States Reports |date=2008 |volume=554 |page=635 |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/554bv.pdf |access-date=August 9, 2020 |archive-date=September 14, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200914173330/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/554bv.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref>
{{blockquote |[The Second Amendment] surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.}}

An earlier case, ''[[United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez]]'' (1990), dealt with nonresident aliens and the Fourth Amendment, but led to a discussion of who are "the People" when referred to elsewhere in the Constitution:<ref name="Kopel1999">{{cite book |last=Kopel |first=David B. |title=The Supreme Court's Thirty-five Other Gun Cases: What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yBFAGwAACAAJ |access-date=March 17, 2013 |date=1999 |publisher=Independence Institute |archive-date=May 11, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240511151543/https://books.google.com/books?id=yBFAGwAACAAJ |url-status=live}}</ref>
{{blockquote |The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people"{{nbsp}}... While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.}}

According to the majority in ''Heller'', there were several different reasons for this amendment, and protecting militias was only one of them; if protecting militias had been the only reason then the amendment could have instead referred to "the right of the ''militia'' to keep and bear arms" instead of "the right of the ''people'' to keep and bear arms".<ref>{{cite book |last=Crooker |first=Constance |url=https://archive.org/details/guncontrolgunrig0000croo |url-access=registration |title=Gun Control and Gun Rights |page=[https://archive.org/details/guncontrolgunrig0000croo/page/55 55] |publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group |date=2003 |isbn=978-0313321740}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Lund |first=Nelson |url=https://www.georgialawreview.org/article/2609-the-past-and-future-of-the-individual-s-rights-to-arms |title=The past and future of the individual's right to arms |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325015037/https://www.georgialawreview.org/article/2609-the-past-and-future-of-the-individual-s-rights-to-arms/ |archive-date=March 25, 2018 |journal=Georgia Law Review |volume=31 |page=26 |date=1996}}</ref>

===Meaning of "keep and bear arms"===
In ''Heller'' the majority rejected the view that the term "to bear arms" implies only the military use of arms:<ref name="District of Columbia v Heller" />
{{blockquote |Before addressing the verbs "keep" and "bear", we interpret their object: "Arms". The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of "keep Arms" in the Second Amendment is to "have weapons". At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry". In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens "bear arms in defense of themselves and the state" again, in the most analogous linguistic context{{snd}}that "bear arms" was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase "bear Arms" also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight" or "to wage war". But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition "against". Every example given by petitioners' amici for the idiomatic meaning of "bear arms" from the founding period either includes the preposition "against" or is not clearly idiomatic. In any event, the meaning of "bear arms" that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby "bear arms" connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. Worse still, the phrase "keep and bear Arms" would be incoherent. The word "Arms" would have two different meanings at once: "weapons" (as the object of "keep") and (as the object of "bear") one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying "He filled and kicked the bucket" to mean "He filled the bucket and died."}}

In a dissent, joined by justices [[David Souter|Souter]], [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg|Ginsburg]], and [[Stephen Breyer|Breyer]], Justice Stevens said:<ref name="District of Columbia v Heller (No. 07-290)">{{cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZD |title=District of Columbia v Heller |publisher=Cornell University Law School |access-date=August 30, 2010 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100706122321/http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZD |archive-date=July 6, 2010}}</ref>
{{blockquote |The Amendment's text does justify a different limitation: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves".}}

A May 2018 analysis by [[Dennis Baron]] contradicted the majority opinion:<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html |title=Opinion – Antonin Scalia was wrong about the meaning of 'bear arms' |first=Dennis |last=Baron |date=May 21, 2018 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |access-date=May 23, 2018 |archive-date=May 22, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180522034522/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html |url-status=live}}</ref>
{{blockquote|A search of Brigham Young University's new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase "bear arms". BYU's Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of "bear arms" in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful don't refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of "bear arms" in the framers' day was military.}}

A paper from 2008 found that before 1820, the use of the phrase "bear arms" was commonly used in a civilian context, such as hunting and personal self-defense, in both American and British law.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cramer |first1=Clayton E. |last2=Olson |first2=Joseph Edward |title=What Did 'Bear Arms' Mean in the Second Amendment? |journal=Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy |volume=6 |issue=2 |date=2008 |ssrn=1086176 |url=https://ssrn.com/abstract=1086176 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200806104131/https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=1086176 |archive-date=August 6, 2020}}</ref> One scholar suggests that the right to "keep and bear arms" further includes a right to privately manufacture firearms.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=McWilliam |first=Jamie |date=March 26, 2022 |title=The Unconstitutionality of Unfinished Receiver Bans |url=https://www.harvard-jlpp.com/the-unconstitutionality-of-unfinished-receiver-bans-jamie-g-mcwilliam/ |journal=Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy: Per Curiam |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |issue=9 |access-date=March 5, 2023 |archive-date=March 5, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230305161325/https://www.harvard-jlpp.com/the-unconstitutionality-of-unfinished-receiver-bans-jamie-g-mcwilliam/ |url-status=live}}</ref>

== Analysis of grammar and syntax ==
The Second Amendment is viewed by scholars as divided into two clauses, a prefatory [[clause]], and an operative clause.

The prefatory clause includes the text:

''A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,''

Followed by the operative clause:

''the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.''

Under the standard model, the prefatory clause is understood to be merely amplifying the operative clause. The prefatory clause was meant as a non-exclusive example{{snd}}one of many justifications for the Second Amendment.<ref name="Bodenahamer" /> This interpretation is consistent with the position that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.<ref name="isbn1-55786-594-9">Frey and Wellman, p. 194.</ref>

Under the collective right models, the prefatory clause was considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause.<ref name="isbn0-8223-3031-8">Merkel and Uviller, p. 150. "The linguistically correct reading of this unique construction is as though it said: 'Congress shall not limit the right of the people (that is, the potential members of the state militia) to acquire and keep the sort of arms appropriate to their military duty, so long as the following statement remains true: "an armed, trained, and controlled militia is the best{{snd}}if not the only{{snd}}way to protect the state government and the liberties of its people against uprisings from within and incursions or oppression from without."'"</ref> This interpretation claimed that this was a grammar structure common during the era the Second Amendment was written and that this grammar dictated that the Second Amendment protected a collective right to firearms to the extent necessary for militia duty.<ref>{{cite web |title=Amicus Brief, ACRU, Case No. 03-CV-0213-EGS, Shelly Parker, et al. vs. District of Columbia |url=http://www.theacru.org/amicusbriefs/parker_v_DC.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100704074317/https://www.theacru.org/amicusbriefs/parker_v_DC.pdf |archive-date=July 4, 2010 |access-date=August 30, 2010 |page=14}}</ref><ref>Winterer, pp. 1–21</ref> Many linguistic scholars reject this interpretation of the grammar and syntax, asserting, "...that the prefatory clause is neither internal nor conditional; instead, it's temporal and external, meaning the opening words introduce its context and purpose."<ref>{{Cite web |title=The 'Strange' Syntax of the Second Amendment |url=https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/the-strange-syntax-of-the-second-amendment |access-date=2025-02-10 |website=Duke Center for Firearms Law |language=en}}</ref>

The comma between the word "Arms" and "shall" also has been involved in debate centered around the meaning and interpretation of this one comma between the two words.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Stooksberry |first=Jay |date=2025-01-27 |title=Guns and grammar |url=https://reason.com/2025/01/27/guns-and-grammar/?utm_medium=reason_email&utm_source=new_at_reason&utm_campaign=reason_brand&utm_content=Neocons%20Wage%20a%20Rearguard%20Action%20Against%20Trump's%20Middle%20East%20Peace%20Drive&utm_term=&time=January%2027th,%202025&mpid=38717&mpweb=2534-5601-38717 |access-date=2025-02-10 |website=Reason.com |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Bodenner |first=Chris |date=2016-01-25 |title=The Most Consequential Comma in U.S. History? |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2016/01/most-consequential-comma/625192/ |access-date=2025-02-10 |website=The Atlantic |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":0" /> Some argue that "...long-standing British tradition minimized punctuation's effect on laws" and that therefore this comma has little significance on the real meaning of the Second Amendment.<ref name=":1" />

The Second Amendment uses "passive voice" in its language as opposed to "active voice." Only the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]] uses "active voice" ("Congress shall make no law").<ref name=":1" /> Debate around whom the Second Amendment applies to has also centered around this "passive voice" used in its wording.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Epstein |first=Richard A. |date=2008 |title=A Structural Interpretation of the Second Amendment: Why Heller is (Probably) Wrong on Originalist Grounds |url=https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8016&context=journal_articles |journal=University of Chicago Law School}}</ref> A ''[[Reason (magazine)|Reason]]'' magazine analysis from January 2025 stated on the subject of the "passive" versus "active" voice used in the Second Amendment that:<blockquote>The Bill of Rights' passive voice consistently elevates one object: individual rights. As for the subject, the Framers could neither specify nor predict what or who could infringe upon said rights. Thus, the Constitution, especially following the 14th Amendment's ratification, safeguards these rights from an exhaustive catalog of unscrupulous subjects—namely, state actors (e.g., cops, Congress, presidents, judges, city councils, etc.) that could violate these freedoms.<ref name=":1" /></blockquote>

==Supreme Court cases==
{{See also|List of firearm court cases in the United States}}

In the century following the ratification of the [[United States Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]], the intended meaning and application of the Second Amendment drew less interest than it does in modern times.<ref name="Saul_Cornell_neither_model">{{cite book |last=Cornell |first=Saul |title=Gun Control |page=6 |quote=Neither of the two modern theories that have defined public debate over the right to bear arms is faithful to the original understanding of this provision of the Bill of Rights.}}</ref>{{full citation needed|date=September 2024|reason=Two works by Saul Cornell are fully cited, with sufficient identifying information, but this one is not. Either it's a separate work titled ''Gun Control'' or someone has confusingly abbreviated the title of one of the already-cited works, ''A Well-Regulated Militia – The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America''.}} The vast majority of regulation was done by states, and the first case law on weapons regulation dealt with state interpretations of the Second Amendment. A notable exception to this general rule was ''Houston v. Moore'', {{ussc|18|1|1820}}, where the U.S. Supreme Court mentioned the Second Amendment in an aside.{{efn|Justice Story "misidentified" it as the "5th Amendment". Several public officials, including [[James Madison]] and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, retained the confusing practice of referring to each of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights by the enumeration found in the first draft; the fifth article is the Second Amendment.}} In the [[Dred Scott v. Sandford|''Dred Scott'' decision]] (1857), the [[Majority opinion|opinion of the court]] stated that if [[African American]]s were considered [[Citizenship in the United States|U.S. citizens]], "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right{{nbsp}}... to keep and carry arms wherever they went."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393 |title=FindLaw &#124; Cases and Codes |work=FindLaw |access-date=July 5, 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130815052036/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393 |archive-date=August 15, 2013}}</ref>

State and federal courts historically have used two models to interpret the Second Amendment: the "individual rights" model, which holds that individuals hold the right to bear arms, and the "collective rights" model, which holds that the right is dependent on militia membership. The "collective rights" model has been rejected by the Supreme Court, in favor of the individual rights model, beginning with its ''District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)'' decision.

The Supreme Court's primary Second Amendment cases include ''United States v. Miller'', (1939); ''District of Columbia v. Heller'' (2008); and ''McDonald v. Chicago'' (2010).

''Heller'' and ''McDonald'' supported the individual rights model, under which the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms much as the First Amendment protects the right to free speech. Under this model, the militia is composed of members who supply their own arms and ammunition. This is generally recognized as the method by which militias have historically been armed, as the Supreme Court in ''Miller'' said:<ref>{{cite web |url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/174/case.html |title=''United States v. Miller'' |website=Supreme.Justia.com |access-date=August 30, 2010 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100421112508/http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/174/case.html |archive-date=April 21, 2010}}</ref>
{{blockquote|The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.}}

Of the collective rights model that holds that the right to arms is based on militia membership, the Supreme Court in ''Heller'' said:<ref>{{cite web |url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/opinion.html |title=''District of Columbia v. Heller'' |website=Supreme.Justia.com |access-date=August 30, 2010 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101019040534/http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/opinion.html |archive-date=October 19, 2010}}</ref>
{{blockquote|A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If "bear arms" means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage ("for the purpose of self-defense" or "to make war against the King"). But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game". The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the [[The Hatter|mad hatter]].}}

===''United States v. Cruikshank''===
{{Main |United States v. Cruikshank}}

In the [[Reconstruction Era]] case of ''United States v. Cruikshank'', {{ussc|92|542|1875}}, the defendants were white men who had killed more than sixty black people in what was known as the [[Colfax massacre]] and had been charged with conspiring to prevent blacks from exercising their right to bear arms. The Court dismissed the charges, holding that the Bill of Rights restricted Congress but not private individuals. The Court concluded, "[f]or their protection in its enjoyment, the people must look to the States."<ref>''Cruikshank'', at 552.</ref>

The Court stated that "[t]he Second Amendment{{nbsp}}... has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government{{nbsp}}..."<ref>''Cruikshank'', at 553.</ref> Likewise, the Court held that there was no [[State actor|state action]] in this case, and therefore the Fourteenth Amendment was not applicable:<ref>''Cruikshank'', at 554.</ref>
{{blockquote|The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another.}}

Thus, the Court held a federal [[Enforcement Act of 1871 (third act)|anti-Ku-Klux-Klan statute]] to be unconstitutional [[Facial challenge|as applied]] in that case.<ref name="isbn1-933995-25-4">Doherty, p. 14.</ref>

===''Presser v. Illinois''===
{{Main |Presser v. Illinois}}

In ''Presser v. Illinois'', {{ussc|116|252|1886}}, Herman Presser headed a German-American paramilitary shooting organization and was arrested for leading a parade group of 400 men, training and drilling with military weapons with the declared intention to fight, through the streets of Chicago as a violation of Illinois law that prohibited public drilling and parading in military style without a permit from the governor.<ref name="DeConde2001" /><ref>{{cite news |title=The Lehr und Wehr Verein |newspaper=The New York Times |date=July 20, 1886 |page=5 |url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9803E3D91E3EEF33A25753C2A9619C94679FD7CF |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160427154634/http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9803E3D91E3EEF33A25753C2A9619C94679FD7CF |archive-date=April 27, 2016}}</ref>

At his trial, Presser argued that the State of Illinois had violated his Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court reaffirmed ''Cruikshank'', and also held that the Second Amendment prevented neither the States nor Congress from barring private militias that parade with arms; such a right "cannot be claimed as a right independent of law". This decision upheld the States' authority to regulate the militia and that citizens had no right to create their own militias or to own weapons for semi-military purposes.<ref name="DeConde2001" /> The Court however observed with respect to the reach of the Amendment on the national government and the federal states and the role of the people therin: "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."<ref>{{cite web |title=Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), at 265 |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/116/252/ |publisher=Justia US Supreme Court Center |access-date=June 27, 2021 |date=January 4, 1886 |archive-date=June 23, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210623080914/https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/116/252/ |url-status=live}}</ref> In essence the court said: "A state cannot prohibit the people therein from keeping and bearing arms to an extent that would deprive the United States of the protection afforded by them as a reserve military force."<ref name="Cramer1994">{{cite book |last=Cramer |first=Clayton E. |title=For the defense of themselves and the state: the original intent and judicial interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms |url=https://archive.org/details/fordefenseofthem00cram |url-access=registration |access-date=March 11, 2013 |date=1994 |publisher=Praeger |isbn=978-0275949136}}</ref>

===''Miller v. Texas''===
In ''Miller v. Texas'', {{ussc|153|535|1894}}, Franklin Miller was convicted and sentenced to be executed for shooting a police officer to death with an illegally carried handgun in violation of Texas law. Miller sought to have his conviction overturned, claiming his Second Amendment rights were violated and that the Bill of Rights should be applied to state law. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to state laws such as the Texas law, writing:<ref name="DeConde2001" /> "As the proceedings were conducted under the ordinary forms of criminal prosecutions there certainly was no denial of due process of law."<ref>''Miller'', at 539.</ref>

===''Robertson v. Baldwin''===
In ''Robertson v. Baldwin'', {{ussc|165|275|1897}}, the Supreme Court stated in ''[[Dictum|dicta]]'' that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons."<ref>''Robertson'', at 281.</ref>

===''United States v. Schwimmer''===
{{Main|United States v. Schwimmer}}
	
''United States v. Schwimmer'', {{ussc|279|644|1929}}, concerned a [[Pacifism|pacifist]] applicant for [[naturalization]] who in the interview declared not to be willing to "take up arms personally" in defense of the [[United States]]. The Supreme Court cited the Second Amendment indirectly by declaring that the United States Constitution obliges citizens "to defend our government against all enemies whenever necessity arises is a fundamental principle of the Constitution"<ref name="20210627JustiaSCCSchwimmer">{{cite web |title=United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929), at 650 |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/279/644/ |publisher=Justia US Supreme Court Center |access-date=June 27, 2021 |date=May 27, 1929 |archive-date=October 10, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201010232058/https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/279/644// |url-status=live}}</ref> and by declaring further that the "common defense was one of the purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution."<ref name="20210627JustiaSCCSchwimmer" />

===''United States v. Miller''===
{{Main |United States v. Miller}}

In ''United States v. Miller'', {{ussc|307|174|1939}}, the Supreme Court rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the [[National Firearms Act]] prohibiting the interstate transportation of unregistered [[Any Other Weapon|Title II weapons]]:<ref>''Miller'', at 175.</ref>
{{blockquote|Jack Miller and Frank Layton "did unlawfully{{nbsp}}... transport in interstate commerce from{{nbsp}}... Claremore{{nbsp}}... Oklahoma to{{nbsp}}... Siloam Springs{{nbsp}}... Arkansas a certain firearm{{nbsp}}... a double barrel{{nbsp}}... shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length{{nbsp}}... at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce{{nbsp}}... not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code{{nbsp}}... and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order{{nbsp}}... as provided by Section 1132C{{nbsp}}..."}}

In a unanimous opinion authored by [[James Clark McReynolds|Justice McReynolds]], the Supreme Court stated "the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable."<ref>''Miller'', at 177–78.</ref> As the Court explained:<ref>''Miller'', at 178.</ref>
{{blockquote|In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.}}

Gun rights advocates claim that the Court in ''Miller'' ruled that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep arms that are part of "ordinary military equipment".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.secondamendment.net/2amd4.html |title=The misconstruction of United States v. Miller |last=Fezell |first=Howard J. |access-date=January 5, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081222165117/http://www.secondamendment.net/2amd4.html |archive-date=December 22, 2008}}</ref> They also claim that the Court did not consider the question of whether the sawed-off shotgun in the case would be an applicable weapon for personal defense, instead looking solely at the weapon's suitability for the "common defense".<ref>{{cite news |url=https://huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/one-courts-second-amendme_b_74283.html |title=One Court's Second Amendment Fantasy |first=Paul |last=Helmke |access-date=April 29, 2011 |work=Huffington Post |date=March 28, 2008 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121113212551/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/one-courts-second-amendme_b_74283.html |archive-date=November 13, 2012}}</ref> Law professor [[Andrew McClurg]] states, "The only certainty about ''Miller'' is that it failed to give either side a clear-cut victory. Most modern scholars recognize this fact."<ref>McClurg, p. 139. "But when all is said and done, the only certainty about ''Miller'' is that it failed to give either side a clear-cut victory. Most modern scholars recognize this fact. For example, Professor [[Eugene Volokh]] describes Miller as 'deliciously and usefully ambiguous' in an article about using the Second Amendment as a teaching tool in constitutional law. That is probably the most accurate statement that can be made about the case."</ref>

===''District of Columbia v. Heller''===
{{Main |District of Columbia v. Heller}}

====Judgment====
[[File:Supreme Court US 2006.jpg|upright=1.35|thumb |right |The justices who decided ''Heller'']]

According to the syllabus prepared by the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions,<ref name="RecorderOfDecisionsHellerSummary">{{cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=heller&url=/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html |title=District of Columbia v. Heller (No. 07-290) |work=Legal Information Institute |publisher=Cornell University Law School |access-date=December 26, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130120034916/http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=heller&url=%2Fsupct%2Fhtml%2F07-290.ZS.html |archive-date=January 20, 2013}}</ref> in ''District of Columbia v. Heller'', {{ussc|554|570|2008}}, the Supreme Court held:<ref name="RecorderOfDecisionsHellerSummary" /><ref name="CornellHellerSummary">{{cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html |title=Cornell School of Law Summary of the ''Heller'' Decision |publisher=Law.cornell.edu |access-date=September 1, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120911002745/http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html |archive-date=September 11, 2012}}</ref>

{{ordered list
|The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. pp.&nbsp;2–53.<ref name="RecorderOfDecisionsHellerSummary" /><ref name="CornellHellerSummary" />
{{ordered list|type=lower-alpha
|The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. pp.&nbsp;2–22.<ref name="RecorderOfDecisionsHellerSummary" /><ref name="CornellHellerSummary" />
| The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. pp.&nbsp;22–28.<ref name="RecorderOfDecisionsHellerSummary" /><ref name="CornellHellerSummary" />
| The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. pp.&nbsp;28–30.<ref name="RecorderOfDecisionsHellerSummary" /><ref name="CornellHellerSummary" />
| The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. pp.&nbsp;30–32.<ref name="RecorderOfDecisionsHellerSummary" /><ref name="CornellHellerSummary" />
| Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. pp.&nbsp;32–47.<ref name="RecorderOfDecisionsHellerSummary" /><ref name="CornellHellerSummary" />
| None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither ''United States v. Cruikshank'', 92 U.S. 542, nor ''Presser v. Illinois'', 116 U.S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. ''United States v. Miller'', 307 U.S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. pp.&nbsp;47–54.<ref name="RecorderOfDecisionsHellerSummary" /><ref name="CornellHellerSummary" />
}}
|Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. ''Miller''{{'}}s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. pp.&nbsp;54–56.<ref name="RecorderOfDecisionsHellerSummary" /><ref name="CornellHellerSummary" />
| The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition{{snd}}in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute{{snd}}would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. pp.&nbsp;56–64.<ref name="CornellHellerSummary" />}}

The ''Heller'' court also stated (''Heller'', 554 U.S. 570 (2008), at 632) its analysis should not be read to suggest "the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents."<ref>{{cite web |title=Post-Heller Litigation Summary |url=https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/litigation/post-heller-litigation-summary/ |publisher=[[Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence|Giffords Law Center]] |access-date=January 13, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201027224703/https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/litigation/post-heller-litigation-summary/ |archive-date=October 27, 2020 |date=August 25, 2020}}</ref>
The Supreme Court also defined the term arms used in the Second Amendment. "Arms" covered by the Second Amendment were defined in ''[[District of Columbia v. Heller]]'' to include "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another". 554 U. S., at 581."<ref>''[[Caetano v. Massachusetts|''Caetano v. Massachusetts''', 577 U.S. ___ (2016)]]'', [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf slip op.] {{Webarchive|url= https://web.archive.org/web/20200219134123/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf |date=February 19, 2020}} at 6–7 ([[Samuel Alito|Alito, J.]], concurring in the judgment).</ref> The Michigan Court of Appeals 2012 relied on ''Heller'' in the case ''People v. Yanna'' to state certain limitations on the right to keep and bear arms:<ref>{{cite web |publisher=Court of Appeals of Michigan |title=People v. Yanna, 824 NW 2d 241 - Mich: Court of Appeals 2012 |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2173205783209579447 |via=Google Scholar |access-date=November 15, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201115172411/https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2173205783209579447 |archive-date=November 15, 2020 |date=June 26, 2012}}</ref>

{{blockquote|In some respects, these limitations are consistent with each other. However, they are not identical, and the United States Supreme Court neither fully harmonized them nor elevated one over another. First, the Court stated that "the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes." ''Id.'' at 625, 128 S.Ct. 2783. The Court further stated that "the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.'" ''Id.'' at 627, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (citation omitted). As noted, however, this included weapons that did not exist when the Second Amendment was enacted. ''Id.'' at 582, 128 S.Ct. 2783. Third, the Court referred to "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'" ''Id.'' at 627, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (citation omitted).}}

There are similar legal summaries of the Supreme Court's findings in ''Heller'' as the one quoted above.<ref name="WitkinSummary">{{cite web |url=http://www.witkin.com/pages/recent_dev_pages/current_pages/conlaw_heller.htm |title=Witkin Legal Institute Summary of the ''Heller'' Decision |publisher=Witkin.com |date=June 30, 2009 |access-date=December 26, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115084557/http://www.witkin.com/pages/recent_dev_pages/current_pages/conlaw_heller.htm |archive-date=January 15, 2013}}</ref><ref name="MooreSummary">{{cite web |url=http://mooredefenselaw.com/2008/06/a-quick-summary-on-district-of-columbia-v-heller/ |title=Nathan Moore Summary of the Heller Decision |publisher=Mooredefenselaw.com |date=June 30, 2008 |access-date=December 26, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115084557/http://mooredefenselaw.com/2008/06/a-quick-summary-on-district-of-columbia-v-heller/ |archive-date=January 15, 2013}}</ref><ref name="GlinSummary">{{cite web |url=http://www.glin.gov/view.action?glinID=207840 |title=Global Legal Information Network Summary of the ''Heller'' Decision |publisher=Glin.gov |access-date=September 1, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120229205035/http://www.glin.gov/view.action?glinID=207840 |archive-date=February 29, 2012}}</ref><ref name="OLRResearchSummary">{{cite web |first=Veronica |last=Rose |url=https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0578.htm |title=OLR Research Institute's Summary of the Heller Decision |publisher=Cga.ct.gov |access-date=September 1, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121113012320/http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0578.htm |archive-date=November 13, 2012}}</ref><ref name="OyezHellerSummary">{{cite web |url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290 |title=Oyez Summary of the ''Heller'' Decision |publisher=Oyez.org |access-date=December 26, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130116072425/http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290 |archive-date=January 16, 2013}}</ref><ref name="LCAVHellerSummary">{{cite web |url=http://www.lcav.org/pdf/dc_v_heller_analysis.pdf |title="Legal Community Against Violence" Summary of the ''Heller'' Decision |publisher=Lcav.org |access-date=September 1, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120913195421/http://www.lcav.org/pdf/dc_v_heller_analysis.pdf |archive-date=September 13, 2012}}</ref> For example, the [[Supreme Court of Illinois|Illinois Supreme Court]] in ''[[People v. Aguilar]]'' (2013), summed up ''Heller''{{'}}s findings and reasoning:<ref name="ISC People v. Aguilar 2013">{{cite web |url=http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2013/112116.pdf |title=People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 |date=September 12, 2013 |work=[[Supreme Court of Illinois|Illinois Supreme Court]] |access-date=September 14, 2014 |pages=5–6 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140611110947/http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2013/112116.pdf |archive-date=June 11, 2014}}</ref>
{{blockquote |In ''District of Columbia v. Heller'', 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever "in-depth examination" of the second amendment's meaning ''Id.'' at 635. After a lengthy historical discussion, the Court ultimately concluded that the second amendment "guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" (''id.'' at 592); that "central to" this right is "the inherent right of self-defense" (''id''. at 628); that "the home" is "where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" (''id.'' at 628); and that, "above all other interests", the second amendment elevates "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home" (''id.'' at 635). Based on this understanding, the Court held that a District of Columbia law banning handgun possession in the home violated the second amendment ''Id.'' at 635.}}

====Notes and analysis====
''Heller'' has been widely described as a [[Lists of landmark court decisions|landmark decision]] because it was the first time the Court affirmed an individual's right to own a gun.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202422582170 |title=Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban |last=Mauro |first=Tony |date=June 27, 2008 |access-date=January 5, 2009 |quote=In a historic 5–4 decision{{nbsp}}... the landmark ruling{{nbsp}}... |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081204073952/http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202422582170 |archive-date=December 4, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-06-26-scotus-guns_N.htm |title=Landmark ruling fires challenges to gun laws |last1=Biskupic |first1=Joan |author1-link=Joan Biskupic |last2=Johnson |first2=Kevin |date=June 27, 2008 |newspaper=[[USA Today]] |access-date=January 5, 2009 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081205104755/http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-06-26-scotus-guns_N.htm |archive-date=December 5, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USWBT00928420080626 |title=Americans have right to guns under landmark ruling |first=James |last=Vicini |date=June 26, 2008 |work=Reuters |access-date=January 5, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?ei=5124&en=21e70d4578db66b2&ex=1372305600&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&pagewanted=all |title=Justices, Ruling 5–4, Endorse Personal Right to Own Gun |last=Greenhouse |first=Linda |date=June 27, 2008 |newspaper=The New York Times |access-date=January 5, 2009 |quote=The landmark ruling{{nbsp}}... |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090417124744/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?ei=5124&en=21e70d4578db66b2&ex=1372305600&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&pagewanted=all |archive-date=April 17, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/us/17bar.html |title=Few Ripples From Supreme Court Ruling on Guns |last=Liptak |first=Adam |date=March 16, 2009 |access-date=August 13, 2010 |quote=The Heller case is a landmark decision that has not changed very much at all{{nbsp}}... |work=The New York Times |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110512163610/http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/us/17bar.html |archive-date=May 12, 2011}}</ref> To clarify that its ruling does not invalidate a broad range of existing firearm laws, the majority opinion, written by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], said:<ref>{{cite news |url=http://m.detnews.com/detail.jsp?key=279156&full=1 |title=Ruling upholds most gun control laws |first=Robert A. |last=Sedler |date=June 30, 2008 |newspaper=The Detroit News |access-date=August 20, 2009}}{{dead link |date=April 2018 |bot=Lingzhi |fix-attempted=yes}}</ref><ref name="longstanding">''Heller'', Opinion of the Court, Part III.</ref>
{{blockquote|Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited{{nbsp}}... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.}}

The Court's statement that the right secured by the Second Amendment is limited has been widely discussed by lower courts and the media.<ref>{{cite news |last=Harris |first=Andrew |url=http://origin-www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&tkr=STOCO1:US&sid=aXHg6J1OG9bE |title=Illinois' bid for rehearing of gun-carry appeal rejected |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131113033941/http://origin-www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&tkr=STOCO1:US&sid=aXHg6J1OG9bE |archive-date=November 13, 2013 |agency=[[Bloomberg News]] |date=February 22, 2013 |quote=The U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver today ruled the constitutional provision doesn't guarantee a right to carry a concealed firearm&nbsp;...}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Kirkland |first=Michael |url=http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/12/16/Scalia-in-08-Right-to-bear-arms-is-not-unlimited/UPI-80201355648700/#ixzz2kUVeJdST |title=Scalia: Right to bear arms is "not unlimited" |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131113024300/http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/12/16/Scalia-in-08-Right-to-bear-arms-is-not-unlimited/UPI-80201355648700/ |archive-date=November 13, 2013 |work=[[UPI]] |date=December 16, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Henigan |first=Dennis |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4DA2XtEHSBUC&pg=PA204 |title=Lethal Logic: Exploding the myths that paralyze American gun policy |page=204 |publisher=Potomac Books |date=2009 |isbn=978-1597973564 |access-date=October 31, 2015 |archive-date=May 11, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240511152430/https://books.google.com/books?id=4DA2XtEHSBUC&pg=PA204#v=onepage&q&f=false |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Huebert |first=Jacob |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cdiZqI5szwgC&pg=PA147 |title=Libertarianism Today |page=147 |publisher=ABC-CLIO |date=2010 |isbn=978-0313377549 |access-date=October 31, 2015 |archive-date=May 11, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240511152302/https://books.google.com/books?id=cdiZqI5szwgC&pg=PA147 |url-status=live}}</ref> According to Justice John Paul Stevens he was able to persuade Justice Anthony M. Kennedy to ask for "some important changes" to Justice Scalia's opinion, so it was Justice Kennedy, who was needed to secure a fifth vote in ''Heller'',<ref name="20181126NYTLiptak">{{cite news |last1=Liptak |first1=Adam |title='It's a Long Story': Justice John Paul Stevens, 98, Is Publishing a Memoir |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/us/politics/john-paul-stevens-memoir.html |access-date=August 29, 2021 |work=The New York Times |date=November 26, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210712122120/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/us/politics/john-paul-stevens-memoir.html |archive-date=July 12, 2021}}</ref> "who requested that the opinion include language stating that Heller 'should not be taken to cast doubt' on many existing gun laws."<ref name="20210426Vox.comMillhiser">{{cite web |url=https://www.vox.com/2021/4/26/22364154/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-state-rifle-corlett-shootings-kavanaugh-barrett |title=The Supreme Court will hear a major Second Amendment case that could gut US gun laws |first=Ian |last=Millhiser |date=April 26, 2021 |access-date=April 26, 2021 |work=[[Vox (website)|Vox]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210825055425/https://www.vox.com/2021/4/26/22364154/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-state-rifle-corlett-shootings-kavanaugh-barrett |archive-date=August 25, 2021}}</ref> The majority opinion also said that the amendment's prefatory clause (referencing the "militia") serves to clarify the operative clause (referencing "the people"), but does not limit the scope of the operative clause, because "the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'.{{nbsp}}... "<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.witkin.com/pages/recent_dev_pages/current_pages/conlaw_heller.htm |title=District of Columbia v. Heller |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115084557/http://www.witkin.com/pages/recent_dev_pages/current_pages/conlaw_heller.htm |archive-date=January 15, 2013 |access-date=August 4, 2010}}</ref>

[[John Paul Stevens|Justice Stevens]]' dissenting opinion, which was joined by the three other dissenters, said:<ref>{{cite web |url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/dissent.html |title=''Heller'', Justice Stevens dissenting |website=Supreme.Justia.com |access-date=August 30, 2010 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101022101020/http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/dissent.html |archive-date=October 22, 2010}}</ref>
{{blockquote|The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a "collective right" or an "individual right". Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.}}

Stevens went on to say the following:<ref name="auto">''Heller'', Opinion of the Court, Part II-A-1-b.</ref>
{{blockquote|The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature's authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.}}

This dissent called the majority opinion "strained and unpersuasive" and said that the right to possess a firearm exists only in relation to the militia and that the D.C. laws constitute permissible regulation. In the majority opinion, Justice Stevens' interpretation of the phrase "to keep and bear arms" was referred to as a "hybrid" definition that Stevens purportedly chose in order to avoid an "incoherent" and "[g]rotesque" idiomatic meeting.<ref name="auto" />

[[Stephen Breyer|Justice Breyer]], in his own dissent joined by Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, stated that the entire Court subscribes to the proposition that "the amendment protects an 'individual' right{{snd}}i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/dissent2.html |title=''Heller'', Justice Breyer dissenting |website=Supreme.Justia.com |access-date=August 30, 2010 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101021002553/http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/dissent2.html |archive-date=October 21, 2010}}</ref>

Regarding the term "well regulated", the majority opinion said, "The adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."<ref name="ReferenceA" /> The majority opinion quoted Spooner from ''[[The Unconstitutionality of Slavery]]'' as saying that the right to bear arms was necessary for those who wanted to take a stand against slavery.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/opinion.html |title=''Heller'', Opinion of the Court, Part II-D-1 |website=Supreme.Justia.com |access-date=August 30, 2010 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101019040534/http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/opinion.html |archive-date=October 19, 2010}}</ref> The majority opinion also stated that:<ref name="Heller">{{cite web |url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290 |title=District of Columbia v. Heller |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080702114401/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290 |archive-date=July 2, 2008 |at=128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008).}}</ref>
{{blockquote|A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If "bear arms" means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage ("for the purpose of self-defense" or "to make war against the King"). But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game". The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter.}}

The dissenting justices were not persuaded by this argument.<ref name="urlJustices Rule for Individual Gun Rights – NYTimes.com">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotuscnd.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all |title=Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |quote=[A] dramatic upheaval in the law, Justice Stevens said in a dissent |newspaper=The New York Times |first=Linda |last=Greenhouse |date=June 27, 2008 |access-date=May 23, 2010 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120117193259/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotuscnd.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all |archive-date=January 17, 2012}}</ref>

Reaction to ''Heller'' has varied, with many sources giving focus to the ruling referring to itself as being the first in Supreme Court history to read the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Scalia, gives explanation of the majority legal reasoning behind this decision.<ref name="CornellHellerSummary" /> The majority opinion made clear that the recent ruling did not foreclose the Court's prior interpretations given in ''United States v. Cruikshank'', ''Presser v. Illinois'', and ''United States v. Miller'' though these earlier rulings did not limit the right to keep and bear arms solely to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia (i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes).<ref name="CornellHellerSummary" />

''Heller'' pertained to three District of Columbia ordinances involving restrictions on firearms amounting to a total ban. These three ordinances were a ban on handgun registration, a requirement that all firearms in a home be either disassembled or have a trigger lock, and licensing requirement that prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, such as from one room to another:<ref name="CornellHellerSummary" />
{{blockquote|Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition{{snd}}in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute{{snd}}would fail constitutional muster.{{nbsp}}... Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the District's licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumed that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and did not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."}}

[[Ruth Bader Ginsburg|Justice Ginsburg]] was a vocal critic of ''Heller''. Speaking in an interview on public radio station [[WNYC]], she called the Second Amendment "outdated", saying:<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.wnyc.org/story/second-amendment-outdated-justice-ginsburg-says |title=Justice Ginsburg Part II: Gender, the Second Amendment, Immigration & More |publisher=wnyc.org |access-date=June 29, 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160418062107/http://www.wnyc.org/story/second-amendment-outdated-justice-ginsburg-says/ |archive-date=April 18, 2016}}</ref>
{{blockquote |When we no longer need people to keep muskets in their home, then the Second Amendment has no function{{nbsp}}... If the Court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new; it gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only{{snd}}and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation.}}

According to [[adjunct professor]] of law at [[Duquesne University School of Law]] Anthony Picadio, who said he's not anti-gun but rather "anti-bad-judging", Justice Scalia's reasoning in ''Heller'' is the product of an erroneous reading of [[Colonial history of the United States|colonial history]] and [[#Debates on amending the Constitution|the drafting]] [[#Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights|history of the Second Amendment]].<ref name="20190210PittsburghPostGazetteO'Neill">{{cite news |last1=O'Neill |first1=Brian |date=February 10, 2019 |title=Slavery root of the Second Amendment |newspaper=Pittsburgh Post-Gazette |url=https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/brian-oneill/2019/02/10/Brian-O-Neill-Slavery-root-of-the-Second-Amendment/stories/201902100107 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210111181355/https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/brian-oneill/2019/02/10/Brian-O-Neill-Slavery-root-of-the-Second-Amendment/stories/201902100107 |archive-date=January 11, 2021}}</ref> He argued that the Southern [[Slave states and free states|slave states]] would never have ratified the Second Amendment if it had been understood as creating an individual right to own firearms because of their fear of arming [[Free Negro|free blacks]].<ref>{{harvnb|Picadio|2019}}</ref> After a lengthy historical and legal analysis Anthony Picadio concluded: "If the Second Amendment had been understood to have the meaning given to it by Justice Scalia, it would not have been ratified by Virginia and the other slave states."<ref name="20190210PittsburghPostGazetteO'Neill" /> Picadio pointed out that the right acknowledged in ''Heller'' was not originally to be [[Fundamental rights in the United States|an enumerated right]]. Instead, he argues, there would be more respect for the ''Heller'' decision, if the right acknowledged in ''Heller'' would have been forthrightly classified as [[Unenumerated rights|an unenumerated right]] and if the issue in ''Heller'' would have been analysed under the [[Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution]].{{sfnp|Picadio|2019|p=23}} He finished with the following observation: "The pre-existing right that the ''Heller'' Court incorporated into the Second Amendment is very narrow. As recognized by [[Samuel Alito|Justice Alito]] in the [[McDonald v. City of Chicago|''McDonald'' case]], it protects only "the right to possess a handgun in the house for the purposes of self-defense." This narrow right has never been extended by the Supreme Court."{{sfnp|Picadio|2019|p=23}}

===''McDonald v. City of Chicago''===
{{Main|McDonald v. City of Chicago}}
On June 28, 2010, the Court in ''[[McDonald v. City of Chicago]]'', {{ussc|561|742|2010}}, held that the Second Amendment was [[Incorporation of the Bill of Rights|incorporated]], saying that "[i]t is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htm |title=Summary of the Recent McDonald v. Chicago Gun Case |last=Rose |first=Veronica |date=August 20, 2010 |publisher=Office of Legal Research – [[Connecticut General Assembly]] |access-date=September 23, 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150925105343/https://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htm |archive-date=September 25, 2015}}</ref> This means that the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.<ref name="nytimes.com" /> It also remanded a case regarding a Chicago handgun prohibition. Four of the five justices in the majority voted to do so by way of the [[Fourteenth Amendment Due Process|Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment]], while the fifth justice, [[Clarence Thomas]], voted to do so through the amendment's [[Privileges or Immunities Clause]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/analysis-state-gun-regulations-and-mcdonald/ |title=Analysis: state gun regulations and McDonald |last=Scarola |first=Matthew |date=June 28, 2010 |publisher=[[SCOTUSblog]] |access-date=July 3, 2010 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100703055256/http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/analysis-state-gun-regulations-and-mcdonald/ |archive-date=July 3, 2010}}</ref> In ''[[United States v. Rahimi]]'' (2024) the Supreme Court stated "that the right to keep and bear arms is among the “fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.” ''[[McDonald v. City of Chicago|McDonald v. Chicago]]'', 561 U. S. 742, 778 (2010)."<ref>{{cite web |title=United States v. Rahimi, 602 U. S. ____ (2024), Opinion of the Court, page 5 |publisher=United States Supreme Court |access-date=June 25, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240625221755/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf |archive-date=June 25, 2024 |date=June 21, 2024 |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf}}</ref>

Justice Thomas, in his [[concurring opinion]], noted that the Privileges or Immunities Clause refers to "citizens" whereas the Due Process Clause refers more broadly to any "person", and therefore Thomas reserved the issue of non-citizens for later decision.<ref name="alien">{{cite book |last=Duignan |first=Brian |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KOCL90Nkc8sC&pg=PA31 |title=The U.S. Constitution and Constitutional Law |pages=31–32 |publisher=Rosen Publishing Group |date=2013 |isbn=978-1615307555 |access-date=October 31, 2015 |archive-date=May 11, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240511152223/https://books.google.com/books?id=KOCL90Nkc8sC&pg=PA31 |url-status=live}}</ref> After ''McDonald'', many questions about the Second Amendment remain unsettled, such as whether non-citizens are protected through the [[Equal Protection Clause]].<ref name="alien" />

In ''[[People v. Aguilar]]'' (2013), the [[Supreme Court of Illinois|Illinois Supreme Court]] summed up the central Second Amendment findings in ''McDonald'':<ref name="ISC People v. Aguilar 2013" />
{{blockquote|Two years later, in ''McDonald v. City of Chicago'', 561 U.S. 742, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in ''[[District of Columbia v. Heller|Heller]]'' is applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that "the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense" (''id''. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that "individual self-defense is 'the ''central component''' of the Second Amendment right" (emphasis in original) (''id''. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that "[s]elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day" (''id''. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036).}}

===''Caetano v. Massachusetts''===
{{Main|Caetano v. Massachusetts}}
On March 21, 2016, in a [[per curiam decision]] the Court vacated a [[Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court]] decision upholding the conviction of a woman who carried a [[Electroshock weapon|stun gun]] for self-defense.<ref name="LDenniston">{{cite web |url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/03/the-second-amendment-expands-but-maybe-not-by-much/ |title=The Second Amendment expands, but maybe not by much |last=Denniston |first=Lyle |date=March 21, 2016 |publisher=[[SCOTUSblog]] |access-date=March 21, 2016 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160323231012/http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/03/the-second-amendment-expands-but-maybe-not-by-much/ |archive-date=March 23, 2016}}</ref> The Court reiterated that the ''Heller'' and ''McDonald'' decisions saying that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding", that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States", and that the protection is not restricted to "only those weapons useful in warfare".<ref>''[[Caetano v. Massachusetts|''Caetano v. Massachusetts''', 577 U.S. ___ (2016)]]'', [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf slip op.] {{Webarchive|url= https://web.archive.org/web/20200219134123/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf |date=February 19, 2020}} at 2 (per curiam).</ref> The term "bearable arms" was defined in ''[[District of Columbia v. Heller]]'', 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes not only firearms, but any "[w]eapo[n] of offence" or "thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands", that is "carr[ied]{{nbsp}}... for the purpose of offensive or defensive action". 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."<ref>''[[Caetano v. Massachusetts|''Caetano v. Massachusetts''', 577 U.S. ___ (2016)]]'', [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf slip op.] {{Webarchive|url= https://web.archive.org/web/20200219134123/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf |date=February 19, 2020}} at 4, footnote 3 ([[Samuel Alito|Alito, J.]], concurring in the judgment).</ref>

===''New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, New York''===
{{main|New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York}}
The Court heard ''New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York'' on December 2, 2019, to decide whether a New York City ordinance that prevents the transport of guns, even if properly unloaded and locked in containers, from within city limits to outside of the city limits is unconstitutional. The New York Rifle & Pistol Association challenged the ordinance on the basis of the Second Amendment, the [[Dormant Commerce Clause]], and the [[Freedom of movement|right to travel]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.npr.org/2019/01/22/687432907/supreme-court-takes-1st-gun-case-in-nearly-a-decade-possibly-with-big-consequenc |title=Supreme Court Takes 1st Gun Case In Nearly A Decade, Possibly With Big Consequences |first1=Domenico |last1=Montenaro |first2=Nina |last2=Totenberg |date=January 22, 2019 |access-date=January 22, 2019 |work=[[NPR]] |archive-date=January 22, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190122204428/https://www.npr.org/2019/01/22/687432907/supreme-court-takes-1st-gun-case-in-nearly-a-decade-possibly-with-big-consequenc |url-status=live}}</ref> However, as the city had changed its rule to allow transport while the case was under consideration by the Court, the Court ruled the case [[Mootness#U.S. federal courts|moot]] in April 2020, though it [[Remand (court procedure)|remanded]] the case so the lower courts could review the new rules under the petitioners new claims.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/27/us/supreme-court-new-york-city-guns.html |title=Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to New York City Gun Ordinance |last=Liptak |first=Adam |date=April 27, 2020 |access-date=April 27, 2020 |work=[[The New York Times]] |archive-date=April 27, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200427154010/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/27/us/supreme-court-new-york-city-guns.html |url-status=live}}</ref>

===''New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen''===
{{main|New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen}}
[[New York (state)|New York]] law prohibits the concealed carry of firearms without a permit. The issuance of such permits was previously at the discretion of state authorities, and permits were not issued absent 'proper cause'. The [[New York State Rifle & Pistol Association]] and two individuals who had been denied permits on the grounds that they lacked proper cause, challenged the licensing regime as a violation of the Second Amendment, with the District Court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of the state.<ref>{{cite web |last=Howe |first=Amy |date=April 26, 2021 |title=Court to take up major gun-rights case |url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/court-to-take-up-major-gun-rights-case/ |access-date=April 26, 2021 |website=[[SCOTUSblog]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210430165118/https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/court-to-take-up-major-gun-rights-case/ |archive-date=April 30, 2021}}</ref> The Supreme Court ruled on June 23, 2022, in a 6–3 decision that the New York law, as a "may-issue" regulation, was unconstitutional, affirming that public possession of firearms was a protected right under the Second Amendment. The majority stated that states may still regulate firearms through "shall-issue" regulations that use objective measures such as background checks.<ref>{{cite news |first=Pete |last=Williams |date=June 23, 2022 |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-says-second-amendment-guarantees-right-carry-guns-public-rcna17721 |title=Supreme Court allows the carrying of firearms in public in major victory for gun-rights groups |publisher=NBC News |access-date=June 23, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231029001307/https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna17721 |archive-date=October 29, 2023}}</ref> In its June 2024 ''[[United States v. Rahimi]]'' decision, the Court refined the [[New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen|''Bruen'']] test, stating that in comparing modern gun control laws to historic tradition, courts should use similar analogues and general principles rather than strict matches.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-upholds-bar-on-guns-with-domestic-violence-restraining-orders/ |title=Supreme Court upholds bar on guns under domestic-violence restraining orders |first=Amy |last=Howe |date=June 21, 2024 |access-date=June 21, 2024 |work=[[SCOTUSBlog]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240625215859/https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-upholds-bar-on-guns-with-domestic-violence-restraining-orders/ |archive-date=June 25, 2024}}</ref>

==United States Courts of Appeals decisions before and after ''Heller''==

===Before ''Heller''===
Until ''District of Columbia v. Heller'' (2008), ''United States v. Miller'' (1939) had been the only Supreme Court decision that "tested a congressional enactment against [the Second Amendment]".<ref name="crs2a2">CRS Report for Congress ''District of Columbia v.Heller: The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment'' April 11, 2008, Congressional Research Service T.J. Halsted, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division. Order Code RL34446 {{cite web |url=http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf |title=District of Columbia v. Heller |access-date=June 27, 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130703221619/http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf |archive-date=July 3, 2013}}</ref> ''Miller'' did not directly mention either a collective or individual right, but for the 62-year period from ''Miller'' until the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|Fifth Circuit's]] decision in ''[[United States v. Emerson]]'' (2001), federal courts recognized only the collective right,<ref>''Cases v. United States'', 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942); ''United States v. Toner'', 728 F.2d 115 (2nd Cir. 1984); ''United States v. Rybar'', 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1997); ''Love v. Peppersack'', 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir. 1995); ''United States v. Johnson'', 441 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1971); ''United States v. Warin'', 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir. 1976); ''Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove'', 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1983); ''United States v. Hale'', 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1993); ''Hickman v. Block'', 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996); ''United States v. Oakes'', 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1978); and ''United States v. Wright'', 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 1997)</ref> with "courts increasingly referring to one another's holdings{{nbsp}}... without engaging in any appreciably substantive legal analysis of the issue".<ref name="crs2a2" />

''Emerson'' changed this by addressing the question in depth, with the Fifth Circuit determining that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.<ref name="crs2a2" /> Subsequently, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit]] conflicted with ''Emerson'' in ''[[Silveira v. Lockyer]]'', and the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|D.C. Circuit]] supported ''Emerson'' in ''[[Parker v. District of Columbia]]''.<ref name="crs2a2" /> ''Parker'' evolved into ''[[District of Columbia v. Heller]]'', in which the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

===After ''Heller''===

Since ''Heller'', the [[United States courts of appeals]] have ruled on many Second Amendment challenges to convictions and gun control laws.<ref name="Winkler14">Winkler, "Heller's Catch 22", p. 14.</ref><ref name="AdamLiptak-3-17-09-NYTimes.com">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/us/17bar.html?_r=1 |title=Few Ripples From Supreme Court Ruling on Guns |last=Liptak |first=Adam |work=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=March 26, 2009 |date=March 17, 2009 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120117114714/http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/us/17bar.html?_r=1 |archive-date=January 17, 2012}}</ref>

====D.C. Circuit====
* ''Heller v. District of Columbia'', Civil Action No. 08-1289 (RMU), No. 23., 25{{snd}}On March 26, 2010, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|D.C. Circuit]] denied the follow-up appeal of Dick Heller who requested the court to overturn the new District of Columbia gun control ordinances newly enacted after the 2008 ''Heller'' ruling. The court refused to do so, stating that the firearms registration procedures, the prohibition on assault weapons, and the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices were found to not violate the Second Amendment.<ref>{{cite web |title=Heller v. District of Columbia 2010 |url=http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=in%20fdco%2020100329000t.xml&docbase=cslwar3-2007-curr |publisher=Leagle |date=March 26, 2010 |access-date=February 22, 2013 |archive-date=May 11, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240511152302/https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20100329000t.xml |url-status=live}}</ref> On September 18, 2015, the D.C. Circuit ruled that requiring gun owners to re-register a gun every three years, make a gun available for inspection or pass a test about firearms laws violated the Second Amendment, although the court upheld requirements that gun owners be fingerprinted, photographed, and complete a safety training course.<ref>{{cite magazine |url=https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/09/18/dc-gun-laws-appeals-court-strikes-some-down |title=Some D.C. Gun Laws Unconstitutional |date=September 18, 2015 |magazine=[[U.S. News & World Report]] |access-date=September 19, 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151016045416/http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/09/18/dc-gun-laws-appeals-court-strikes-some-down |archive-date=October 16, 2015}}</ref>
* ''Wrenn v. District of Columbia'', No. 16-7025{{snd}}On July 25, 2017, the D.C. Circuit ruled that a District of Columbia regulation that limited conceal-carry licenses only to those individuals who could demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the chief of police, that they have a "good reason" to carry a handgun in public was essentially designed to prevent the exercise of the right to bear arms by most District residents and so violated the Second Amendment by amounting to a complete prohibition on firearms possession.<ref>{{cite magazine |title=In Major Win for 2nd Amendment Advocates, Federal Court Blocks D.C. from Enforcing Conceal-Carry Restriction |url=http://reason.com/blog/2017/07/25/in-major-win-for-2nd-amendment-advocates |magazine=[[Reason (magazine)|Reason]] |date=July 25, 2017 |access-date=July 26, 2017 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170726155300/http://reason.com/blog/2017/07/25/in-major-win-for-2nd-amendment-advocates |archive-date=July 26, 2017}}</ref>

====First Circuit====
* ''United States v. Rene E.'', {{West |F |583 |3 |8 |1st Cir. |2009 |}}{{snd}}On August 31, 2009, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit|First Circuit]] affirmed the conviction of a juvenile for the illegal possession of a handgun as a juvenile, under {{usc|18|922(x)(2)(A)}} and {{usc|18|5032}}, rejecting the defendant's argument that the federal law violated his Second Amendment rights under ''Heller''. The court cited "the existence of a longstanding tradition of prohibiting juveniles from both receiving and possessing handguns" and observed "the federal ban on juvenile possession of handguns is part of a longstanding practice of prohibiting certain classes of individuals from possessing firearms{{snd}}those whose possession poses a particular danger to the public."<ref>''Rene E.'', at 12–15.</ref>

====Second Circuit====
* ''Kachalsky v. County of Westchester'', 11-3942{{snd}}On November 28, 2012, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|Second Circuit]] upheld New York's [[may-issue]] [[concealed carry]] permit law, ruling that "the proper cause requirement is substantially related to New York's compelling interests in public safety and crime prevention."<ref>{{cite news |last=Hamblett |first=Mark |date=November 28, 2012 |title=N.Y.'s Concealed Gun Licensing Scheme Is Upheld by Circuit |url=https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/almID/1202579515171/ |url-status=live |journal=New York Law Journal |access-date=May 11, 2024 |archive-date=May 11, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240511152225/https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/almID/1202579515171/}}</ref>

====Third Circuit====
* ''Range v. Attorney General of the United States'', Civil Action No. 21-2835{{snd}}On June 6, 2023, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|Third Circuit]] ruled that the Second Amendment prohibited a lifetime ban on firearms possession as a result of a conviction for a nonviolent crime.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Dale |first=Maryclaire |date=June 6, 2023 |title=US appeals court says people convicted of nonviolent offenses shouldn't face lifetime gun ban |work=[[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]] |url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-appeals-court-rejects-lifetime-gun-ban-nonviolent-99883966 |access-date=June 11, 2023 |archive-date=June 12, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230612025231/https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-appeals-court-rejects-lifetime-gun-ban-nonviolent-99883966 |url-status=live}}</ref>

====Fourth Circuit====
* ''United States v. Hall'', {{West |F |551 |3 |257 |4th Cir. |2009 |}}{{snd}}On August 4, 2008, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|Fourth Circuit]] upheld as constitutional the prohibition of possession of a concealed weapon without a permit.<ref name="Winkler15">Winkler, "Heller's Catch 22", p. 15.</ref>
* ''United States v. Chester'', 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010){{snd}}On December 30, 2010, the Fourth Circuit vacated William Chester's conviction for possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, in violation of {{usc |18 |922(g)(9)}}.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1550305.html?DCMP=NWL-pro_conlaw |title=United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit |work=FindLaw |publisher=Thomson Reuters |access-date=December 26, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115150230/https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1550305.html?DCMP=NWL-pro_conlaw |archive-date=January 15, 2013}}</ref> The court found that the district court erred in perfunctorily relying on ''Heller's'' exception for "presumptively lawful" gun regulations made in accordance with "longstanding prohibitions".<ref>Part III of the decision.</ref>
* ''Kolbe v. Hogan'', No. 14-1945 (4th Cir. 2016){{snd}}On February 4, 2016, the Fourth Circuit vacated a [[United States district court|U.S. District Court]] decision upholding a Maryland law banning high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic rifles, ruling that the District Court was wrong to have applied [[intermediate scrutiny]]. The Fourth Circuit ruled that the higher [[strict scrutiny]] standard is to be applied on [[Remand (court procedure)|remand]].<ref>{{cite news |url=http://jurist.org/paperchase/2016/02/fourth-circuit-requires-application-of-strict-scrutiny-in-challenge-to-maryland-gun-law.php |title=Fourth Circuit requires application of strict scrutiny in challenge to Maryland gun law |last=Santiago |first=Matthew |date=February 5, 2016 |publisher=[[JURIST]] |access-date=February 6, 2016 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160206094835/http://jurist.org/paperchase/2016/02/fourth-circuit-requires-application-of-strict-scrutiny-in-challenge-to-maryland-gun-law.php |archive-date=February 6, 2016}}</ref> On March 4, 2016, the court agreed to rehear the case ''[[en banc]]'' on May 11, 2016.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Unpublished/141945R1.U.pdf |title=Order granting rehearing ''en banc'' |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160307081313/http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Unpublished/141945R1.U.pdf |archive-date=March 7, 2016}}</ref>

====Fifth Circuit====
* ''United States v. Dorosan'', 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009){{snd}}On June 30, 2008, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|Fifth Circuit]] upheld {{CodeFedReg |39|232|1|(l)}}, which bans weapons on postal property, sustaining restrictions on guns outside the home, specifically in private vehicles parked in employee parking lots of government facilities, despite Second Amendment claims that were dismissed. The employee's Second Amendment rights were not infringed since the employee could have instead parked across the street in a public parking lot, instead of on government property.<ref>Weisselberg, pp. 99–100.</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/08/08-31197.0.wpd.pdf |title=Text of decision in ''Dorosan'' |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120803155145/http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/08/08-31197.0.wpd.pdf |archive-date=August 3, 2012}}</ref>
* ''United States v. Bledsoe'', 334 Fed. Appx. 771 (5th Cir. 2009){{snd}}The Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision of a U.S. District Court decision in Texas, upholding {{usc |18 |922(a)(6)}}, which prohibits "straw purchases". A "straw purchase" occurs when someone eligible to purchase a firearm buys one for an ineligible person. Additionally, the court rejected the request for a strict scrutiny standard of review.<ref name="Winkler15" />
* ''United States v. Scroggins'', {{West |F |551 |3 |257 |5th Cir. |2010 |}}{{snd}}On March 4, 2010, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction of Ernie Scroggins for possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of {{usc |18 |922(g)(1)}}. The court noted that it had, prior to ''Heller'', identified the Second Amendment as providing an individual right to bear arms, and had already, likewise, determined that restrictions on felon ownership of firearms did not violate this right. Moreover, it observed that ''Heller'' did not affect the longstanding prohibition of firearm possession by felons.

====Sixth Circuit====
* ''Tyler v. Hillsdale Co. Sheriff's Dept.'', {{West |F |775 |3 |308 |6th Cir. |2014 |}}{{snd}}On December 18, 2014, the Sixth Circuit ruled that [[strict scrutiny]] should be applied to firearms regulations when regulations burden "conduct that falls within the scope of the Second Amendment right, as historically understood".<ref>''Tyler v. Hillsdale Co. Sheriff's Dept.'', 775 F.3d 308, 317–19 (6th Cir. 2014) (internal quotations omitted).</ref> At issue in this case was whether the Second Amendment is violated by a provision of the [[Gun Control Act of 1968]] that prohibits possession of a firearm by a person who has been [[Involuntary commitment|involuntarily committed]] to a [[psychiatric hospital]]. The court did not rule on the provision's constitutionality, instead remanding the case to the [[United States district court]] that has earlier heard this case.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://ggtmlaw.com/litigation/federal-circuit-court-holds-involuntary-mental-commitment-cannot-prevent-person-asserting-fundamental-right-gun-ownership/ |title=Federal Circuit Court Holds That Involuntary Mental Commitment Cannot Prevent A Person From Asserting His 'Fundamental Right' Of Gun Ownership |date=January 21, 2015 |publisher=Gielow, Groom, Terpstra & McEvoy |access-date=September 22, 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150923031722/https://ggtmlaw.com/litigation/federal-circuit-court-holds-involuntary-mental-commitment-cannot-prevent-person-asserting-fundamental-right-gun-ownership/ |archive-date=September 23, 2015}}</ref> On April 21, 2015, the Sixth Circuit voted to rehear the case ''[[en banc]]'', thereby vacating the December 18 opinion.<ref>''Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff's Dep't'', 2015 U.S. App., Lexis 6638 (2015)</ref>

====Seventh Circuit====
* ''United States v. Skoien'', {{West |F |587 |3 |803 |7th Cir. |2009 |}}{{snd}}Steven Skoien, a Wisconsin man convicted of two misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, appealed his conviction based on the argument that the prohibition violated the individual rights to bear arms, as described in ''Heller''. After initial favorable rulings in lower court based on a standard of [[intermediate scrutiny]],<ref name="SLAW_0714">{{cite web |title=Skoien and the many challenges of Second Amendment jurisprudence |url=http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2010/07/skoien-and-the-many-challenges-of-second-amendment-jurisprudence.html |work=Sentencing Law and Policy |access-date=August 13, 2010 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100812205639/http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2010/07/skoien-and-the-many-challenges-of-second-amendment-jurisprudence.html |archive-date=August 12, 2010}}</ref> on July 13, 2010, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|Seventh Circuit]], sitting ''en banc'', ruled 10–1 against Skoien and reinstated his conviction for a gun violation, citing the strong relation between the law in question and the government objective.<ref name="SLAW_0714" /> Skoien was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison for the gun violation, and will thus likely be subject to a lifetime ban on gun ownership.<ref name="urlCourthouse News Service">{{cite web |url=http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/14/28821.htm |title=U.S. v. Skoien No. 08-3770 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120319024831/http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/14/28821.htm |archive-date=March 19, 2012}}</ref><ref name="urlLeagleSkoien">{{cite web |url=http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100713141 |title=Laws, Life, and Legal Matters – Court Cases and Legal Information at Leagle.com – All Federal and State Appeals Court Cases in One Search |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110713193812/http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100713141 |archive-date=July 13, 2011}}</ref> Editorials favoring gun rights sharply criticized this ruling as going too far with the enactment of a lifetime gun ban,<ref name="urlJournalTimesSkoien">{{cite web |url=http://www.journaltimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_2f5bf07e-990e-11df-b2d7-001cc4c002e0.html |title=The right to regain the right to own a gun |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100801001131/http://www.journaltimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_2f5bf07e-990e-11df-b2d7-001cc4c002e0.html |archive-date=August 1, 2010}}</ref> while editorials favoring gun regulations praised the ruling as "a bucket of cold water thrown on the 'gun rights' celebration".<ref name="urlHeniganSkoien">{{cite news |url=https://huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/new-court-ruling-throws-c_b_649443.html |title=Dennis A. Henigan: New Court Ruling Throws Cold Water on "Gun Rights" Celebration |work=Huffington Post |date=July 16, 2010 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100719144316/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/new-court-ruling-throws-c_b_649443.html |archive-date=July 19, 2010}}</ref>
* ''[[Moore v. Madigan]]'' (Circuit docket 12-1269)<ref>{{cite news |title=Moore v. Madigan (Circuit docket 12-1269) |url=http://www.suntimes.com/csp/cms/sites/STM/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=t4wP4b2KIDGk1hVfXGe7YGPb7UVDJBJDeYT$Rvi3PYUPDq7tdCeP62kHTBxgBvuF4Aw$6wU9GSUcqtd9hs3TFeZCn0vq69IZViKeqDZhqNLziaXiKG0K_ms4C2keQo54&CONTENTTYPE=application/pdf&CONTENTDISPOSITION=guns-CST-121212.pdf7 |work=United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit |publisher=suntimes.com |access-date=December 18, 2012 |date=December 11, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130724085327/http://www.suntimes.com/csp/cms/sites/STM/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=t4wP4b2KIDGk1hVfXGe7YGPb7UVDJBJDeYT%24Rvi3PYUPDq7tdCeP62kHTBxgBvuF4Aw%246wU9GSUcqtd9hs3TFeZCn0vq69IZViKeqDZhqNLziaXiKG0K_ms4C2keQo54&CONTENTTYPE=application%2Fpdf&CONTENTDISPOSITION=guns-CST-121212.pdf7 |archive-date=July 24, 2013}}</ref>{{snd}}On December 11, 2012, the Seventh Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment protected a right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. This was an expansion of the Supreme Court's decisions in ''Heller'' and ''McDonald'', each of which referred only to such a right in the home. Based on this ruling, the court declared Illinois's ban on the [[concealed carry]]ing of firearms to be unconstitutional. The court [[Stay of execution|stayed]] this ruling for 180 days, so Illinois could enact replacement legislation.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/12/broader-gun-right-declared/#more-156442 |title=Broader gun right declared |last=Denniston |first=Lyle |date=December 11, 2012 |publisher=[[SCOTUSblog]] |access-date=December 11, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121212180049/http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/12/broader-gun-right-declared/#more-156442 |archive-date=December 12, 2012}}</ref><ref name="NYT20121218">{{cite news |last=Liptak |first=Adam |title=Supreme Court Gun Ruling Doesn't Block Proposed Controls |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/gun-plans-dont-conflict-with-justices-08-ruling.html?_r=0 |access-date=December 18, 2012 |newspaper=The New York Times |date=December 18, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121221013219/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/gun-plans-dont-conflict-with-justices-08-ruling.html?_r=0 |archive-date=December 21, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Kopel |first=David |title=Moore v. Madigan, key points |url=http://www.volokh.com/2012/12/11/moore-v-madigan-key-points/ |publisher=The Volokh Conspiracy |access-date=December 18, 2012 |date=December 11, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121218092439/http://www.volokh.com/2012/12/11/moore-v-madigan-key-points/ |archive-date=December 18, 2012}}</ref> On February 22, 2013, a petition for rehearing ''en banc'' was denied by a vote of 5–4.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.volokh.com/2013/02/22/rehearing-en-banc-denied-in-case-invalidating-illinois-ban-on-carrying-loaded-guns-in-public/ |title=Rehearing En Banc Denied in Case Invalidating Illinois' Ban on Carrying Loaded Guns in Public |last=Volokh |first=Eugene |date=February 22, 2013 |publisher=[[The Volokh Conspiracy]] |access-date=February 22, 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130225053129/http://www.volokh.com/2013/02/22/rehearing-en-banc-denied-in-case-invalidating-illinois-ban-on-carrying-loaded-guns-in-public/ |archive-date=February 25, 2013}}</ref> On July 9, 2013, the [[Illinois General Assembly]], overriding [[Pat Quinn (politician)|Governor Quinn]]'s veto, passed a law permitting the concealed carrying of firearms.<ref>{{cite web |title=Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry Act Will Require Employers to Take Action |url=http://www.hklaw.com/publications/Illinois-Firearm-Concealed-Carry-Act-Will-Require-Employers-to-Take-Action-08-05-2013/ |publisher=Holland & Koch |access-date=November 4, 2013 |first1=Todd D. |last1=Steenson |first2=Phillip M. |last2=Schreiber |first3=Adam R. |last3=Young |date=August 5, 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131105175627/http://www.hklaw.com/publications/Illinois-Firearm-Concealed-Carry-Act-Will-Require-Employers-to-Take-Action-08-05-2013/ |archive-date=November 5, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-illinois-idUSBRE9680ZB20130709 |title=Illinois Is Last State to Allow Concealed Carry of Guns |last=McCune |first=Greg |work=Reuters |date=July 9, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190927084407/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-illinois/illinois-is-last-state-to-allow-concealed-carry-of-guns-idUSBRE9680ZB20130709 |archive-date=September 27, 2019 |access-date=July 20, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324867904578596150074731668 |title=Illinois Abolishes Ban on Carrying Concealed Weapons |last=Jones |first=Ashby |newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |date=July 9, 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180117070315/https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324867904578596150074731668 |archive-date=January 17, 2018 |access-date=July 20, 2013 |url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=DeFiglio |first1=Pam |last2=McRoy |first2=Darren |title=General Assembly Overrides Veto, Legalizing Concealed Carry in Illinois |url=https://patch.com/illinois/skokie/general-assembly-overrides-veto-legalizing-concealed-carry-in-illinois_113cbbf0 |access-date=March 31, 2020 |publisher=Patch Media |date=July 9, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170311020918/https://patch.com/illinois/skokie/general-assembly-overrides-veto-legalizing-concealed-carry-in-illinois_113cbbf0 |archive-date=March 11, 2017}}</ref>

====Ninth Circuit====
* ''Nordyke v. King'', 2012 WL 1959239 (9th Cir. 2012){{snd}}On July 29, 2009, the Ninth Circuit [[Vacated judgment|vacated]] an April 20 panel decision and reheard the case ''[[en banc]]'' on September 24, 2009.<ref name="volokh.com">{{cite news |url=http://volokh.com/posts/1248906855.shtml |title=Ninth Circuit Will Rehear Nordyke v. King En Banc |last=Volokh |first=Eugene |date=July 29, 2009 |publisher=[[The Volokh Conspiracy]] |access-date=July 30, 2009 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090731085651/http://volokh.com/posts/1248906855.shtml |archive-date=July 31, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/25/taking_liberties/entry5263569.shtml |title=High-Profile Gun Rights Case Inches Toward Supreme Court |last=McCullagh |first=Declan |date=August 25, 2009 |publisher=[[CBS News]] |access-date=August 25, 2009 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090828001213/http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/25/taking_liberties/entry5263569.shtml |archive-date=August 28, 2009}}</ref><ref name="urlAppeals Court Sets Rehearing on Ruling That Eased Gun Restrictions – NYTimes.com">{{cite news |first=John |last=Schwartz |date=July 30, 2009 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/us/31guns.html |title=Appeals Court Sets Rehearing on Ruling That Eased Gun Restrictions |work=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=August 17, 2009 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120117175100/http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/us/31guns.html |archive-date=January 17, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2009/07/second-amendment-less-chance-of-review/ |title=Second Amendment: Less chance of review? |last=Denniston |first=Lyle |date=July 30, 2009 |publisher=[[SCOTUSblog]] |access-date=July 31, 2009 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100203091808/http://www.scotusblog.com/2009/07/second-amendment-less-chance-of-review/ |archive-date=February 3, 2010}}</ref> The April 20 decision had held that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, while upholding an [[Alameda County, California]] ordinance that makes it a crime to bring a gun or ammunition on to, or possess either while on, county property.<ref name="Nordyke">{{cite web |url=http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf |title=Nordyke v. King |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090513160251/http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf |archive-date=May 13, 2009 |department=9th Cir. 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2009/04/second-amendment-extended/ |title=Second Amendment extended |last=Denniston |first=Lyle |date=April 20, 2009 |publisher=[[SCOTUSblog]] |access-date=April 20, 2009 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100203133809/http://www.scotusblog.com/2009/04/second-amendment-extended/ |archive-date=February 3, 2010}}</ref> The ''en banc'' panel remanded the case to the three-judge panel. On May 2, 2011, that panel ruled that [[intermediate scrutiny]] was the correct standard by which to judge the ordinance's constitutionality and remanded the case to the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/05/circuit-court-bolsters-gun-rights/ |title=Circuit Court bolsters gun rights |last=Denniston |first=Lyle |date=May 4, 2011 |publisher=[[SCOTUSblog]] |access-date=May 4, 2011 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110505001243/http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/05/circuit-court-bolsters-gun-rights/ |archive-date=May 5, 2011}}</ref> On November 28, 2011, the Ninth Circuit vacated the panel's May{{nbsp}}2 decision and agreed to rehear the case ''en banc''.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Nordyke-v-King/Nordyke-En-Banc-2011-11-28.pdf |title=Text of November 28 order granting rehearing |access-date=September 1, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120913213628/http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Nordyke-v-King/Nordyke-En-Banc-2011-11-28.pdf |archive-date=September 13, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_19427869 |title=9th Circuit agrees to rehear long-running Alameda County gun rights case |last=Mintz |first=Howard |date=November 29, 2011 |newspaper=Oakland Tribune |access-date=November 30, 2011 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111204041047/http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_19427869 |archive-date=December 4, 2011}}</ref> On April 4, 2012, the panel sent the case to [[mediation]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/04/major-gun-case-shunted-aside/ |title=Major gun case shunted aside |last=Denniston |first=Lyle |date=April 4, 2012 |publisher=[[SCOTUSblog]] |access-date=April 5, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120407072529/http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/04/major-gun-case-shunted-aside/ |archive-date=April 7, 2012}}</ref> The panel dismissed the case on June 1, 2012, but only after Alameda County officials changed their interpretation of the challenged ordinance. Under the new interpretation, gun shows may take place on county property under the ordinance's exception for "events", subject to restrictions regarding the display and handling of firearms.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/nordyke-gun-case-nears-end/ |title=Nordyke gun case nears end |last=Denniston |first=Lyle |date=June 2, 2012 |publisher=[[SCOTUSblog]] |access-date=June 3, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120604065911/http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/nordyke-gun-case-nears-end/ |archive-date=June 4, 2012}}</ref>
* ''Teixeira v. County of Alameda'', (Circuit docket 13-17132){{snd}}On May 16, 2016, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the right to keep and bear arms included being able to buy and sell firearms. The court ruled that a county law prohibiting a gun store being within 500 feet of a "[r]esidentially zoned district; elementary, middle or high school; pre-school or day care center; other firearms sales business; or liquor stores or establishments in which liquor is served" violated the Second Amendment.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/05/16/13-17132.pdf |title=Teixeira v. County of Alameda (Circuit docket 13-17132) |work=United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |date=May 16, 2016 |access-date=February 8, 2017 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170206020708/https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/05/16/13-17132.pdf |archive-date=February 6, 2017}}</ref>
* ''Peruta v. San Diego'' No. 10-56971 (9th Cir. 2016), (Circuit docket 13-17132){{snd}}On June 9, 2016, pertaining to the legality of San Diego County's restrictive policy regarding requiring documentation of "good cause" before issuing a concealed carry permit, the Ninth Circuit upheld the policy, finding that "there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/06/09/10-56971.pdf |title=Peruta v. San Diego |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160615050306/http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/06/09/10-56971.pdf |archive-date=June 15, 2016 |id=No. 10-56971 (9th Cir. 2016)}}</ref>
* ''Young v. State of Hawaii'' No. 12-17808 (9th Cir. 2021){{snd}}An ''en banc'' ruling of the Ninth Circuit on March 26, 2021, upheld the validity of Hawaii's law that barred open carry of guns outside of one's home without a license. The Ninth Circuit ruled that there was no right to carry weapons in public spaces, and states have a compelling interest for public safety to restrict public possession of guns.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/24/politics/states-can-restrict-open-carry-guns-federal-appeals-court/index.html |title=Federal appeals court says states can restrict open carry of firearms |first1=Dan |last1=Berman |first2=Paul |last2=LeBlanc |date=March 26, 2021 |access-date=March 27, 2021 |work=CNN|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210331105627/https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/24/politics/states-can-restrict-open-carry-guns-federal-appeals-court/index.html |archive-date=March 31, 2021}}</ref>

==See also==
{{cols}}
* [[2nd Amendment Day]]
* [[Second Amendment sanctuary]]
* [[Gun ownership#United States gun ownership]]
* [[Gun culture in the United States]]
* [[Gun law in the United States#Second Amendment]]
* [[Gun politics in the United States]]
* [[List of amendments to the United States Constitution]]
* [[Right to keep and bear arms]] (worldwide)
* [[Second Amendment Caucus]] – a [[Congressional caucus]] dedicated to supporting the right to bear arms
* [[Uniform Firearms Act]] – a set of statutes in Pennsylvania that define and amplify the ''right to bear arms'' in that state's Constitution{{colend}}

==Notes==
{{notelist}}

==References==
===Citations===
{{reflist |25em}}

===Bibliography===
{{refbegin |30em}}

====Books====
* {{cite book |last=Adams |first=Les |title=The Second Amendment Primer: A Citizen's Guidebook to the History, Sources, and Authorities for the Constitutional Guarantee of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms |publisher=Paladium Press |location=Birmingham, Alabama |date=1996}}
* {{cite book |last=Adamson |first=Barry |title=Freedom of Religion, the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court |publisher=Pelican Publishing |isbn=978-1589805200 |date=2008}}
* {{cite book |last1=Anderson |first1=Casey |last2=Horwitz |first2=Joshua |title=Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea |publisher=University of Michigan Press |location=Ann Arbor, Michigan |date=2009 |isbn=978-0472033706}}
* {{cite book |last=Barnett |first=Hilaire |title=Constitutional & Administrative Law |publisher=Routledge Cavendish |date=2004 |isbn=1859419275}}
* {{cite book |editor1-last=Bickford |editor1-first=Charlene |display-editors=etal |title=Documentary History of the First Federal Congress of the United States of America, March 4, 1789 – March 3, 1791: Correspondence: First Session, September–November 1789 |publisher=The Johns Hopkins University Press |volume=17 |date=2004 |isbn=978-0801871627}}
* {{cite book |last=Blackstone |first=William |editor-last=Tucker |editor-first=St. George |title=Blackstone's Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws, of the Federal Government of the United States, and of the Commonwealth of Virginia: In Five Volumes |publisher=Lawbook Exchange |date=1996 |isbn=978-1886363151}}
* {{cite book |last=Bogus |first=Carl T. |title=The Second Amendment in Law and History: Historians and Constitutional Scholars on the Right to Bear Arms |publisher=The New Press |location=New York |date=2001 |isbn=1565846990 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/secondamendmenti0000unse }}
* {{cite book |last=Boynton |first=Lindsay Oliver J. |title=The Elizabethan Militia 1558–1638 |date=1971 |oclc=8605166 |isbn=071535244X |publisher=David & Charles}}
* {{cite book |last=Carter |first=Gregg Lee |title=Guns in American Society |publisher=ABC-CLIO |date=2002}}
* {{cite book |last=Charles |first=Patrick J. |title=The Second Amendment: The Intent and Its Interpretation by the States and the Supreme Court |publisher=McFarland |date=2009 |isbn=978-0786442706}}
* {{cite book |last=Cooke |first=Edward Francis |title=A Detailed Analysis of the Constitution |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield Publishers |location=Lanham, Maryland |date=2002 |isbn=0742522385}}
* {{cite book |last=Cornell |first=Saul |author-link=Saul Cornell |title=A Well-Regulated Militia – The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=New York |date=2006 |isbn=978-0195147865 |url=https://archive.org/details/wellregulatedmil00corn_0 }}
* {{cite book |last=Cottrol |first=Robert |title=Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the Second Amendment |publisher=Taylor & Francis |date=1994}}
* {{cite book |last=Crooker |first=Constance Emerson |title=Gun Control and Gun Rights |publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group |date=2003 |isbn=978-0313321740 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/guncontrolgunrig0000croo }}
* {{cite book |last=Denson |first=John V. |title=The Costs of War: America's Pyrrhic Victories |edition=2nd |publisher=Transaction Publishers |date=1999 |isbn=978-0765804877}}
* {{cite book |last=Doherty |first=Brian |title=Gun Control on Trial: Inside the Supreme Court Battle Over the Second Amendment |publisher=Cato Institute |location=Washington, DC |date=2008 |isbn=978-1933995250 |url=https://archive.org/details/guncontrolontria0000dohe }}
* {{cite book |last=Dulaney |first=W. Marvin |title=Black Police in America |publisher=Indiana University Press |location=Bloomington |date=1996 |isbn=0253210402}}
* {{cite book |last=Dunbar-Ortiz |first=Roxanne |author-link=Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz |date=2018 |title=Loaded: A Disarming History of the Second Amendment |url=http://www.citylights.com/book/?GCOI=87286100460830&fa=description |location=San Francisco |publisher=City Lights Books |isbn=978-0872867239 |access-date=April 12, 2020 |archive-date=July 31, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200731145531/http://www.citylights.com/book/?GCOI=87286100460830&fa=description |url-status=dead }}
* {{cite book |last1=Ely |first1=James W. |last2=Bodenhamer |first2=David J. |title=The Bill of Rights in Modern America |publisher=Indiana University Press |location=Bloomington |date=2008 |isbn=978-0253219916}}
* {{cite book |last1=Foner |first1=Eric |last2=Garraty |first2=John Arthur |title=The Reader's Companion to American History |publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt |date=1991 |isbn=0395513723 |url=https://archive.org/details/readerscompanion00fone }}
* {{cite book |last1=Frey |first1=Raymond |last2=Wellman |first2=Christopher |title=A Companion to Applied Ethics |publisher=Blackwell Publishing |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |date=2003 |isbn=1557865949}}
* {{cite book |last=Halbrook |first=Stephen P. |publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group |date=1989 |title=A Right to Bear Arms: State and Federal Bills of Rights and Constitutional Guarantees}}
* {{cite book |last=Halbrook |first=Stephen P. |title=That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Independent Studies in Political Economy) |publisher=The Independent Institute |location=Oakland, California |date=1994 |isbn=0945999380 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/thateverymanbear0000halb }}
* {{cite book |last=Hemenway |first=David |title=Private Guns, Public Health |publisher=University of Michigan Press |date=2007 |isbn=978-0472031627}}
* {{cite book |last=Kruschke |first=Earl R. |title=Gun Control: A Reference Handbook |publisher=ABC-CLIO |location=Santa Barbara, California |date=1995 |isbn=087436695X |url=https://archive.org/details/guncontrolrefere00krus }}
* {{cite book |last=Levy |first=Leonard W. |title=Origins of the Bill of Rights |date=1999 |publisher=Yale University Press |location=New Haven, Connecticut |isbn=0300078021 |url=https://archive.org/details/originsofbillofr00levy }}
* {{cite book |last=Madison |first=James |title=The Writings of James Madison: 1787–1790 |publisher=Nabu Press |date=2010 |isbn=978-1144582737}}
* {{cite book |last=Malcolm |first=Joyce Lee |title=To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right |publisher=Harvard University Press |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |date=1996 |isbn=0674893077}}
* {{cite book |last1=Merkel |first1=William G. |last2=Uviller |first2=H. Richard |title=The Militia and the Right to Arms; Or, How the Second Amendment Fell Silent |date=2002 |publisher=Duke University Press |location=Durham, North Carolina |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=abAwWcOeFjkC&q=Militia+Right+Arms |isbn=0822330172 |access-date=February 14, 2013 }}
* {{cite book |last=Millis |first=Walter |title=Arms and Men |publisher=Rutgers University Press |date=1981}}
* {{cite book |last=Mulloy |first=D. |title=American Extremism |publisher=Routledge |date=2004}}
* {{cite book |last1=Pepper |first1=John |last2=Petrie |first2=Carol |last3=Wellford |first3=Charles F. |title=Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review |url=http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0-309-09124-1 |date=2005 |publisher=National Academies Press |location=Washington, DC |isbn=0309091241 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Pole |first1=J. R. |last2=Greene |first2=Jack P. |title=A Companion to the American Revolution (Blackwell Companions to American History) |publisher=Blackwell Publishers |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |date=2003 |isbn=1405116749}}
* {{cite book |last=Renehan |first=Edward J. |title=The Secret Six: The True Tale of the Men Who Conspired With John Brown |publisher=University of South Carolina Press |location=Columbia, South Carolina |date=1997 |isbn=1570031819}}
* {{cite book |last1=Schmidt |first1=Steffen |author1-link=Steffen Schmidt |last2=Bardes |first2=Barbara A. |last3=Shelley |first3=Mack C. |title=American Government and Politics Today: The Essentials |publisher=Wadsworth Publishing |location=Belmont, California |date=2008 |isbn=978-0495571704}}
* {{cite book |last=Shapiro |first=Ilya |title=Cato Supreme Court Review 2007–2008 |publisher=Cato Institute |location=Washington, DC |date=2008 |isbn=978-1933995175}}
* {{cite book |last=Smith |first=Rich |title=The Bill of Rights: Defining Our Freedoms |publisher=ABDO Group |date=2007 |isbn=978-1599289137}}
* {{cite book |last=Spitzer |first=Robert J. |title=The Right to Bear Arms: Rights and Liberties under the Law |publisher=[[ABC-CLIO]] |location=Santa Barbara, California |date=2001 |isbn=1576073475 |url=https://archive.org/details/righttobeararmsr0000spit }}
* {{cite book |last=Szatmary |first=David P. |title=Shays' Rebellion: the Making of an Agrarian Insurrection |url=https://archive.org/details/shaysrebellionma0000szat |url-access=registration |publisher=[[University of Massachusetts Press]] |location=Amherst |date=1980 |isbn=9780511008740 }}
* {{cite book |last=Rabban |first=David |title=Free Speech in its Forgotten Years |publisher=Cambridge University Press |date=1999}}
* {{cite book |last=Rawle |first=William |date=1825 |title=A view of the Constitution of the United States of America |edition=1st |publication-place=Philadelphia |publisher=H. C. Carey & I. Lea |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=akEbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA122 }}
* {{cite book |last=Rawle |first=William |date=1829 |title=A view of the Constitution of the United States of America |edition=2nd |publisher=P.H. Nicklin |url=https://archive.org/details/aviewconstituti02rawlgoog/page/n131 }} Republished as {{cite book |last=Rawle |first=William |date=2011 |title=A view of the Constitution of the United States of America |edition=2nd |publication-place=Colorado Springs |publisher=Portage Publications |isbn=978-1-61501-017-2 |url=https://www.portagepub.com/dl/causouth/rawle.pdf#page=70 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131105174835/http://www.portagepub.com/dl/causouth/rawle.pdf#page=70 |archive-date=November 5, 2013 }}
* {{cite book |last=Spooner |first=Lysander |author-link=Lysander Spooner |title=An Essay on the Trial by Jury |url=https://archive.org/details/anessayontrialb00spoogoog |access-date=July 6, 2013 |date=1852 }}
* {{cite book |last=Tushnet |first=Mark V. |title=Out of Range: Why the Constitution Can't End the Battle Over Guns |publisher=Oxford University Press |date=2007 |page=xv |isbn=978-0195304244 |url=https://archive.org/details/outofrangewhycon00tush }}
* {{cite book |last=Vile |first=John R. |title=The Constitutional Convention of 1787: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of America's Founding (2 Volume Set) |publisher=ABC-CLIO |location=Santa Barbara, California |date=2005 |isbn=1851096698}}
* {{cite book |first=David H. |last=Williams |title=The Mythic Meanings of the Second Amendment: Taming Political Violence in a Constitutional Republic |publisher=Yale University Press |location=New Haven, Connecticut |date=2003 |isbn=0300095627}}
* {{cite book |last=Wills |first=Garry |editor-last=Cornell |editor-first=Saul |title=Whose Right to Bear Arms did the Second Amendment Protect? |publisher=Bedford/St. Martin's |location=Boston |date=2000 |isbn=0312240600}}
* {{cite book |last=Wills |first=Garry |title=A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government |publisher=Simon & Schuster |location=New York |date=2002 |pages=256–257 |isbn=0684870266}}
* {{cite book |last=Winterer |first=Caroline |title=The Culture of Classicism: Ancient Greece and Rome in American Intellectual Life, 1780–1910 |location=Baltimore |publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press |date=2002}}
* {{cite book |last=Young |first=David E. |title=The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights 1787–1792 |edition=2nd |date=2001 |publisher=Golden Oak Books |isbn=0962366439}}

====Periodicals====
* {{cite journal |last=Barnett |first=Gary E. |title=The Reasonable Regulation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms |volume=6 |issue=2 |journal=Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy |date=June 24, 2008 |ssrn=1152102}}
* {{cite journal |last=Bogus |first=Carl T. |title=The Hidden History of the Second Amendment |journal=U.C. Davis Law Review |date=Winter 1998 |volume=31 |issue=2 |pages=309–408 |url=http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/31/2/Articles/DavisVol31No2_Bogus.pdf }}
* {{Cite journal |last=Breen |first=T. H. |title=English Origins and New World Development: The Case of the Covenanted Militia in Seventeenth-Century Massachusetts |journal=Past & Present |issue=57 |date=1972 |doi=10.1093/past/57.1.74 |page=74}}
* {{cite journal |last=Charles |first=Patrick J. |title='Arms for their defence?': An historical, legal, and textual analysis of the English right to have arms and whether the Second Amendment should be incorporated in McDonald v. City of Chicago |journal=Cleveland State Law Review |volume=57 |issue=3 |date=2009 |ssrn=1550768}}
* {{cite journal |last=Cramer |first=Clayton |title=The Racist Roots of Gun Control |date=June 15, 2007 |website=Libcom.org |url=http://libcom.org/library/racist-roots-gun-control-clayton-e-cramer |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170930011716/https://libcom.org/library/racist-roots-gun-control-clayton-e-cramer |archive-date=September 30, 2017 }}
* {{cite journal |last=Davies |first=Ross |title=Which is the Constitution |journal=Green Bag |series=2nd Series |volume=11 |issue=2 |pages=209–216 |url=http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/08-13%20Which%20Is%20the%20Constitution.pdf |date=Winter 2008 |archive-date=June 8, 2022 |access-date=March 11, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220608204753/https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/08-13%20Which%20Is%20the%20Constitution.pdf |url-status=dead }}
* {{cite journal |last=Gunn |first=Steven H. |title=A Lawyer's Guide to the Second Amendment |date=1998 |journal=Brigham Young University Law Review |volume=35}}
* {{cite journal |last=Hardy |first=David |title=Book Review: A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America |volume=15 |date=2007 |journal=William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal |ssrn=947334}}
* {{cite journal |last=Henigan |first=Denis |title=Arms, Anarchy, and the Second Amendment |journal=Valparaiso University Law Review |volume=26 |issue=107 |date=1991 |url=https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2132&context=vulr }}
* {{cite journal |last=Heyman |first=Stephen |date=2000 |title=Natural Rights and the Second Amendment |journal=Chicago-Kent Law Review |volume=76 |issue=237 |url=http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=steven_heyman |archive-date=November 5, 2013 |access-date=May 30, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131105173656/http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=steven_heyman |url-status=dead }}
* {{cite journal |last=Kates |first=Don B. Jr. |date=November 1983 |title=Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment |journal=Michigan Law Review |volume=82 |issue=2 |doi=10.2307/1288537 |pages=204–273 |jstor=1288537 |url=https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3437&context=mlr |url-access=subscription }}
* {{cite journal |last=Konig |first=David Thomas |date=Spring 2004 |title=The Second Amendment: A Missing Transatlantic Context for the Historical Meaning of 'the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms' |journal=Law and History Review |volume=22 |issue=1 |pages=120–159 |doi=10.2307/4141667 |jstor=4141667 |s2cid=145796178}}
* {{cite journal |last=Lund |first=Nelson |title=Heller and Second Amendment Precedent |ssrn=1235537 |journal=Lewis & Clark Law Review |date=August 18, 2008}}
* {{cite journal |last=Malcolm |first=Joyce Lee |title=Book Review: That Every Man Be Armed |volume=54 |date=1986 |journal=[[George Washington Law Review]]}}
* {{cite journal |last=Malcolm |first=Joyce Lee |title=The Role of the Militia in the Development of the Englishman's Right to be Armed – Clarifying the Legacy |journal=Journal on Firearms and Public Policy |volume=5 |date=1993 |url=http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/jfp5ch04.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100823124312/http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/jfp5ch04.htm |archive-date=August 23, 2010 }}
* {{cite journal |last1=McAffee |first1=Thomas B. |last2=Quinlan |first2=Michael J. |title=Bringing Forward the Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Do Text, History, or Precedent Stand in the Way? |date=March 1997 |journal=North Carolina Law Review |url=http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/McAffeeAndQuinlan1.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20000816063909/http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/McAffeeAndQuinlan1.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=August 16, 2000 }}
* {{cite journal |last=McClurg |first=Andrew |title=Lotts' More Guns and Other Fallacies Infecting the Gun Control Debate |volume=11 |date=1999 |journal=J. Of Firearms & Pub. Pol'y}}
* {{cite journal |last=Merkel |first=William |title=Heller and Scalia's Originalism |journal=Lewis & Clark Law Review |volume=13 |issue=2 |ssrn=1422048 |date=Summer 2009}}
* {{cite journal |last=Rakove |first=Jack |title=The Second Amendment: The Highest Stage of Originalism |journal=Chicago-Kent Law Review |volume=76 |date=2000}}
* {{cite journal |last=Reynolds |first=Glenn |author-link=Glenn Reynolds |journal=Tennessee Law Review |title=A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment |volume=62 |issue=461 |date=1995 |ssrn=960788}}
* {{cite journal |last=Schmidt |first=Christopher |journal=William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal |title=An International Human Right to Keep and Bear Arms |date=February 2007 |volume=15 |issue=3 |page=983}}
* {{cite journal |last=Smith |first=Douglas |title=The Second Amendment and the Supreme Court |journal=Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy |volume=6 |ssrn=1093751 |date=2008}}
* {{cite journal |last=Tahmassebi |first=S. B. |title=Gun Control and Racism |journal=George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal |date=1991 |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=67–100 |url=http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Tahmassebi1.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20000816062011/http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Tahmassebi1.html |archive-date=August 16, 2000 }}
* {{cite journal |last=Volokh |first=Eugene |author-link=Eugene Volokh |journal=New York University Law Review |volume=73 |issue=793 |date=1998 |url=http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm |title=The Commonplace Second Amendment }}
* {{cite journal |last=Volokh |first=Eugene |author-link=Eugene Volokh |title=Testimony of Eugene Volokh on the Second Amendment, Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, September 23, 1998 |journal=California Political Review |date=November–December 1998 |url=http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm }}
* {{cite journal |last=Weisselberg |first=Charles D. |url=http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/courtrv/cr44-3/CR44-3Weisselberg.pdf |title=Selected Criminal Law Cases in the Supreme Court's 2007–2008 Term, and a Look Ahead |journal=Court Review |volume=44 |date=2009 |access-date=February 5, 2009 |archive-date=February 6, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090206153126/http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/courtrv/cr44-3/CR44-3Weisselberg.pdf |url-status=dead }}
* {{cite journal |last=Winkler |first=Adam |journal=Michigan Law Review |title=Scrutinizing the Second Amendment |volume=105 |date=February 2007}}
* {{cite journal |last=Winkler |first=Adam |journal=UCLA Law Review |volume=56 |date=June 2009 |title=Heller's Catch 22 |ssrn=1359225}}

====Other publications====
* {{Cite web |last1=Maer |first1=Lucinda |last2=Gay |first2=Oonagh |title=The Bill of Rights 1689 |date=2009 |publisher=Parliament and Constitution Centre |url=http://www.bing.com/search?q=briefing-papers%2FSN00293%2Fbill-of-rights-1689&pc=cosp&ptag=D041015AA5DDB3CCB4&form=CONBDF&conlogo=CT3210127 }}
{{Refend}}

==Further reading==
* {{cite encyclopedia |last=Lund |first=Nelson |chapter=Right to Bear Arms |editor-last=Hamowy |editor-first=Ronald |editor-link=Ronald Hamowy |encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism |chapter-url=https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/libertarianism/n269.xml |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yxNgXs3TkJYC |date=2008 |publisher=[[Sage Publishing]] / [[Cato Institute]] |location=Thousand Oaks, California |doi=10.4135/9781412965811.n269 |isbn=978-1412965804 |oclc=750831024 |pages=438–440|url-access=subscription }}

==External links==
<!--======================== {{No more links}} ============================
 |PLEASE BE CAUTIOUS IN ADDING MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. Wikipedia |
 |is not a collection of links nor should it be used for advertising. |
 ||
 |Excessive or inappropriate links WILL BE DELETED. |
 |See [[Wikipedia:External links]] & [[Wikipedia:Spam]] for details. |
 ||
 |If there are already plentiful links, please propose additions or |
 |replacements on this article's discussion page, or submit your link |
 |to the relevant category at the Open Directory Project (dmoz.org) |
 |and link back to that category using the {{dmoz}} template. |
 ======================= {{No more links}} =====================-->
{{Commons}}
{{Wikiquote |Second Amendment to the United States Constitution}}
{{Wikisource|United States Bill of Rights}}
* {{cite web |url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=07-290 |title=District of Columbia v. Heller}}
* {{cite web |url=https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html |title=National Archives Scanned Image of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment |date=October 30, 2015}}
* {{Internet Archive short film |id=gov.archives.arc.2569792 |name=Big Picture: To Keep and Bear Arms}}
* {{cite web |url=http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm |title=State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions |editor-first=Eugene |editor-last=Volokh |publisher=[[UCLA School of Law]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200305164659/https://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm |archive-date=March 5, 2020 |access-date=April 3, 2020}}.

{{US2ndAmendment}}
{{US Constitution}}
{{Portal bar|Law|United States}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:02}}
[[Category:1791 in American law]]
[[Category:Militia of the United States|Second Amendment]]
[[Category:United States Bill of Rights|02]]
[[Category:United States federal firearms legislation|Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Amendments to the United States Constitution|02]]