The long-running argument over the Second Amendment largely stems from its language, especially at the beginning: “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.” (A militia is
a military force made up of civilians that the government can call up in an emergency.) For decades, many scholars and courts interpreted the amendment as only preserving states’ authority to keep militias, which would mean that the right to have firearms was linked to militia service.
But in
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court reached a broader interpretation, finding that the Second Amendment gave individuals a right to have guns—unconnected to any militia service—and to use them for traditionally legal purposes like self-defense. The Court said that the District of Columbia’s law was unconstitutional because it essentially banned all handguns—the most popular type of gun Americans choose for “the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” The Court also said that, by requiring people to keep all firearms trigger-locked or disassembled, even in the home, the law kept people from using their guns to defend their families and property. In
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), the Court built on its opinion in Heller, holding that this right to self-defense must include the right to carry a gun in public, not just a right to keep a gun in your home or business. The Court said that New York’s law was unconstitutional because it required people seeking concealed carry permits to show “proper cause” for why they needed a weapon for self-defense. The majority opinion said that, because there is a Second Amendment right to carry a gun for self-defense, it was unconstitutional to make permit applicants prove that they had a particularly good reason for needing to defend themselves.