The Right To Bear Arms: Understanding The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, is often referred to as the right to keep and bear arms. The amendment states that 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 interpretation of this amendment has been a topic of considerable debate, with some arguing that it creates an individual right to possess firearms, while others point to the prefatory mention of a well-regulated Militia to argue that it only restricts Congress from disarming state militias. The Second Amendment has been the subject of several landmark Supreme Court cases, including District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, which affirmed an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense, and McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010, which applied the amendment's protections at the state level.

Explore related products

The Second Amendment: A Biography

$9.99 $18.99

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

$12.99

The Second Amendment

$5.99

The Second Amendment Manifesto: What Every American Should Know about Their Constitutional Right to Own Guns

$7.99

In Defense of the Second Amendment

$16.69 $29.99

The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms

$21.11 $28.95

The right to keep and bear arms

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. The amendment was formed during a time of great divide between Federalists and Anti-Federalists regarding the ratification of the Constitution. Anti-Federalists were concerned about the shift of military authority from states to the federal government, fearing the potential for government usurpation of individual rights. The Federalists, however, asserted that the federal government would maintain a standing army and navy, while militias would still function independently.

The Second Amendment 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." This amendment has been a subject of considerable debate, with varying interpretations. Some argue that the amendment grants individuals the right to possess firearms, while others, supporting the "collective rights theory," contend that citizens do not have an individual right to own guns, allowing legislative bodies to regulate firearms.

The historical context of the Second Amendment is important to understand its purpose. During the colonial and revolutionary periods, legal documents such as the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Pennsylvania Constitution asserted the right of citizens to arm themselves as fundamental. Following the American Revolution, there were concerns that oppressive regimes could use their large armies to oppress the people. The proposal to counter this threat was to have state-raised militias composed of average citizens with the right to gather, possess armaments, and receive military instruction and pay from their state governments.

The notion of citizens possessing weapons for self-defence predates the Constitution. The English Bill of Rights in 1689 allowed Protestant English citizens to "have arms for their defence [sic] suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." This concept of weapon possession as an "auxiliary right" was further supported by Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England.

In modern times, the Second Amendment has been the subject of increased political and social commentary. Landmark Supreme Court decisions, such as District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, affirmed the right of individuals to keep and bear arms for self-defence, while also acknowledging that this right is not unlimited and does not preclude certain prohibitions or restrictions. The future of the Second Amendment remains a topic of partisan debate, but scholars agree on its significance as a key part of the Constitution.

The influence of the English Bill of Rights

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. The text of the amendment is as follows:

> 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 English Bill of Rights, enacted in 1689, allowed all Protestant English citizens to "have arms for their defence [sic] suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." This law was later commented on by Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, where he described the possession of weapons as an "auxiliary right" designed to support the core rights of self-defence and resistance to oppression.

The writers of the Second Amendment were heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights. However, there is room for interpretation regarding their intentions. One perspective suggests that the writers intended to preserve the power to regulate arms for the states, mirroring how the English Parliament reserved this power against the monarch. Another viewpoint interprets the Second Amendment as creating a new right, similar to other rights enshrined in the Constitution. This perspective, known as the "'rights' argument", asserts that the English Bill of Rights granted a right to bear arms.

The Second Amendment has been a subject of intense debate, with scholars, lawyers, and professors offering varying interpretations and critiques. The Supreme Court's landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) affirmed the right of individuals to keep guns for self-defence, while also acknowledging that this right is not unlimited and does not override certain prohibitions, such as those pertaining to felons or the mentally ill.

The role of militias

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, 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." This amendment has been the subject of considerable debate, with the role and purpose of militias being a key part of the discussion.

The concept of militias, or armed citizen groups, predates the Second Amendment and the US Constitution itself. During the colonial and revolutionary periods, legal documents such as the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 asserted the right of citizens to arm themselves for defence. In the context of the American Revolution, some argued that raising militias in each state would serve as a deterrent against potential oppression by a large standing army. These state militias would be composed of average citizens who would receive part-time military instruction and pay from their state governments.

The Anti-Federalists, during the debate over the ratification of the Constitution, were concerned about the centralisation of military power in the federal government. The Federalists, however, argued that while the federal government would maintain a standing army and navy, the militias would continue to function. The Second Amendment was seen as a compromise, ensuring that regardless of the federal government's military authority, citizens retained the right to possess weapons.

The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment's reference to militias have evolved over time. Initially, it served as a bulwark against foreign invasion and federal overreach. However, in modern times, the focus has shifted towards individual gun ownership for general safety, protection of life, liberty, and property. This shift is exemplified in court cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), where the Supreme Court affirmed the right of individual citizens to keep weapons for self-defence, extending beyond the context of state-run militias.

While the role of militias has evolved and adapted to changing circumstances, the Second Amendment continues to be a divisive issue in American society, with ongoing debates about the scope and interpretation of the right to bear arms.

Explore related products

The Second Amendment: A History of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in America: From Colonial Roots to Modern Freedom

$13.99

Loaded: A Disarming History of the Second Amendment (City Lights Open Media)

$11.98 $16.95

Madison's Militia: The Hidden History of the Second Amendment

$16.28 $31.99

The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution

$16.69 $17.95

The Second Amendment: Gun Rights and Regulation (University Casebook Series)

$270

The Second Amendment Puzzle Book: 60 Patriotic Word & Number Puzzles | 500 Freedom-Themed Words | A Fun Brain Workout for Patriots, Veterans, and Puzzle Lovers

$6.99

The individual right theory

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, protects the right to keep and bear arms. The amendment was originally intended to act as a bulwark against foreign invasion and federal overreach, ensuring that individual states could raise militias to defend themselves. Over time, the focus shifted to the general safety and protection of life, liberty, and property.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

> "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 interpretation of this amendment has been a matter of considerable debate, with the "individual right theory" being one of the key perspectives. This theory asserts that the Second Amendment creates an individual constitutional right to possess firearms. Proponents of this theory argue that the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" indicates a restriction on legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession. At the very least, they argue that the amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulations as presumptively unconstitutional.

The "individual right theory" has been supported by several Supreme Court decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun for self-defence. This decision marked a shift from previous interpretations that focused on the role of militias. The Court also clarified that the right is not unlimited and does not prevent certain prohibitions, such as those forbidding firearm possession by felons or the mentally ill.

In subsequent cases, such as McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) and Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the individual right to bear arms and extended it to include all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those not in existence at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification. These rulings have had a significant impact on gun control measures, with the Court striking down bans on handgun possession and the ownership of "stun guns".

While the "individual right theory" has gained support through these rulings, there is still a lack of consistency in the Supreme Court's approach to the Second Amendment. Lower courts continue to struggle with conflicting rulings, and the full implications of recent decisions, such as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022), remain to be seen.

The collective rights theory

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, protects the right to keep and bear arms. The text of the amendment is as follows:

> "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 interpretation of this amendment has been a subject of debate, with some scholars advocating for the "individual right theory" and others for the "collective rights theory". The collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that the amendment does not create an individual constitutional right to possess firearms. Instead, it argues that the framers intended to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defence by forming a well-regulated militia.

According to the collective rights theory, the Second Amendment's reference to "a well-regulated Militia" indicates that the focus is on the collective right of states to maintain a militia rather than an individual right to bear arms. This theory suggests that the amendment's purpose was to ensure that states had the ability to defend themselves and maintain their sovereignty. The theory holds that legislative bodies at the local, state, and federal levels have the authority to regulate firearms without violating any constitutional right to gun ownership.

This interpretation of the Second Amendment highlights the importance of maintaining a balance between state and federal powers. By guaranteeing the states' right to self-defence, the amendment acts as a safeguard against federal overreach and ensures that states can protect themselves from potential threats, including foreign invasion or internal unrest.

While the collective rights theory provides a framework for understanding the Second Amendment, it has also faced legal challenges and differing interpretations. In the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun for self-defence, marking a shift towards recognising an individual right to bear arms. However, the Court also acknowledged that this right is not unlimited and does not prevent certain restrictions on firearm possession, such as prohibiting felons or the mentally ill from owning firearms.

In summary, the collective rights theory of the Second Amendment interprets the amendment as preserving a state's right to self-defence through the maintenance of a well-regulated militia. This theory emphasises the collective nature of the right to bear arms and grants legislative bodies the authority to regulate firearms without infringing on constitutional rights. While the interpretation of the Second Amendment continues to evolve through legal challenges and societal changes, the collective rights theory remains a significant perspective in understanding the amendment's original intent and its role in shaping gun rights and state sovereignty in the United States.

Frequently asked questions