How has the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states: “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.” In its interpretation of this Amendment, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right to bear arms is a right available to all citizens and is not limited to a militia. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case of DC v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. This ruling overruled the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision which had held that the Second Amendment only applies to organized militias. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the rights of all Americans to keep and bear arms, regardless of their membership in a militia. The Court also stated that the Amendment should not be interpreted in a "vague or expansive" manner. The Supreme Court also held in 2010, in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, that the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as the federal government and that states could not impose restrictions on the right to bear arms that would be in violation of the Second Amendment. Overall, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is that it protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Supreme Court also held that this right applies to both the federal government and the states.

How has the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts