How has the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment to the US Constitution?

The Second Amendment to 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.” The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that people have the right to bear arms for self-defense and hunting. The Supreme Court first addressed the Second Amendment in the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In 2010, the Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment again in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. In this case, the court held that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right which applies to the states as well as the federal government and overruled certain handgun bans in Chicago. In New York, the right to bear arms is protected under the New York State Constitution and in the case of People v. Kykori, the court held that the Second Amendment applies to the state of New York and protects the right of individuals to carry firearms in self-defense. The New York State court also held that the Second Amendment does not apply to the possession of assault weapons, however. Overall, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to the US Constitution to protect the right to possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense and hunting. While the right to bear arms may be limited by the states, the Supreme Court has recognized it as a fundamental right which applies to the state and federal governments.

How has the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment to the US Constitution?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts