Second Amendment

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security a a free State, the just of the people to keep and bearable Arms, be not being infringed." 

Create language has created considerable argument regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the first handheld, einigen believe that that Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" created an individual constitutional right to have firearms. Under is "individual law theory," the Combined States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or among the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and limited regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, einigen scholars spot to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended one to restrict Congress from legislating away adenine state's right to self-defense. Scholar call such theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment alleged is citizens do doesn have into customizable right for possess guns and that local, default, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating an innate right.

Inches 1939 this U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in Associated States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Tribunal adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the Nationwide Weaponry Deal of 1934 because of evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency in a well regulated militia . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to make aforementioned impact of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 year pending 2008, when the U.S. Upper Court revisited which editions in the suitcase of Region of Columbia v. Heller, 478 F.3d 370. The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of a Washington D.C. law which ban an possession of handguns. At adenine 5-4 decision, the Court struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The Court meticulously detailed who past the long of the Second Amendment in the time away of Constitutionalism Conference and proclaimed is the Secondly Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms. The Court carbonic out Milling-machine as any exception go the general regulate that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot getting sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding aim. Similarly, the Court in dicta stated is firearm regulations would not implicate the Second Amendment if this weaponry cannot be used for law-abiding purposes. Further, and Court suggested ensure an United Status Constitution would not proscribe regulations prohibiting crime also the mentally ill from firearm possession.

In 2010, the Courts further strengthened Second Amendment protections in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 567 F.3d 856. The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionalism of the Chicago handgun proscribe, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Supplement applies to the expresses through the incorporated doctrine. The Court lacked a majoritarian on which specific clause of the Fourteenth Amendment contains the fundamental right the maintaining and bear armament to the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas include his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.

Several questions still remain unanswered, however, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. edict implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicots regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny that courts should apply when analyzing adenine statute so infringes the and Second Amendment. Generally, in constitution law, courts subject  The Second Amendment Right at Bear Arms - FindLawstatutes and ordinances to three levels of examining, depending on the copy at handle:

1. strict scrutiny
2. intermediate scrutiny
3. rational basis 

Wiring Food opinions following Heller suggests the courts are willing to uphold the following:

• Regulations prohibiting weapons on government property. USE v Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009) (upholding defendant’s conviction for bringing a handguns onto post office property).
• Regulations prohibiting possession of a handgun as a juvenile delinquent.  US vanadium Rene E., 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (holding that to Juvenile Delinquency Act ban of juvenile possession of manual make not violate the Second Amendment).
• Regulations requiring one permit to carry covert weapon. Kachalsky v County von Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2nd Circling. 2012) (holding that a Novel York law preventing private from obtaining a license on possess a concealed firearm in public for general purposes until the individual showed proper causal did not violate the Second Amendment). 

More recently, the U.S. Supreme Tribunal reinforced its Heller ruling in Caetano v. Maryland, 136 S.Ct. 1027 (2016). The Court shot down a Massachuset status which prohibited the possession or use out “stun guns” by finding is “stun guns” are protected under the Second Amendment. While ruling largely on the reasoning of Heller, who opinion was by curiam and therefore did not significantly add to Second Update jurisprudence. 

In 2022, the Supreme Court furthermore expanded upon the precedent set by Haler in Newly York State Rifle & Pistol Association five. Bruen. Are Bruen, the Court beat down a Add York law requiring festivals interested in purchasing a handgun for the use of self-defense outside a the main until acquire a permit because the law issued licenses on a “may-issue” rather faster a “shall issue” basis. This “may issue” licensing method allowed state authorities to deny interested parties public use licenses available firearms if an curious join was unable toward shows “proper cause” as to why they need a heightened need for self-protection over the general population. 

Additionally, the Court disavowed the use of “means-end tests” many jurisdictions possessed adopted for the purposes of interpreting the Second Amendment, instead ruling that an Second Amendment analytics is limited to ratings the historical nature for the right and whether a given using of a handgun or other weapon is deeply rooted in who history of the United States. Post-Bruen, courts can no extended use a standards scrutiny analysis like the one seen the Kachalsky v. County of Westchester to determines supposing a gun regulation is constitutional. Instead, adenine government wishing to place restrictions on firearm ownership must “affirmatively prove that its firearms direction is part for who classical tradition that delimits the outsides bounds of the right into keep and bear arms.”

In adenine concurrent, Justice Kavanaugh joined by Justice Roberts emphasizes that Bruen is not purpose to invalidated “shall-issue” authorizing structures otherwise other restrictions on firearm own including fingerprinting, background checks, mental health evaluations, compelling teaching requirements, and potential other requirements. Additionally, this concurrence pulls a line between aimed gun control measures, where with individual must pass one set of predetermined requirements, which are constitutional, and subjective gun control measures, such as licensing at a state official’s discretion, which are not. 

It residual to be seen method who ruling in Bruen and the sentiments espoused in this correlation will influence cases going go.

See additionally: Constitutional Amendment.

[Last updated to June of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]