Right to Keep and Bear Arms
2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution
What does the Right to Keep and Bear Arms mean?
The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms. For most of American history, the scope of this right was debated — some argued it only protected state militias, while others contended it guaranteed an individual right unconnected to militia service.
Source: U.S. Const. amend. 2
Original Text
“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.”
Plain-English Explanation
The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms. For most of American history, the scope of this right was debated — some argued it only protected state militias, while others contended it guaranteed an individual right unconnected to militia service.
In 2008, the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in the home. Two years later, McDonald v. City of Chicago incorporated this right against state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.
The right is not unlimited. The Court has recognized that certain regulations — such as prohibitions on felons and the mentally ill possessing firearms, laws forbidding firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and conditions on the commercial sale of arms — are presumptively lawful.
Key Doctrines
Landmark Cases
District of Columbia v. Heller
(2008)Held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to militia service, striking down D.C.'s handgun ban and trigger lock requirement as unconstitutional.
McDonald v. City of Chicago
(2010)Incorporated the Second Amendment right against state and local governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, invalidating Chicago's handgun ban.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen
(2022)Established that firearm regulations must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, replacing the means-end scrutiny approach used by lower courts with a text, history, and tradition test.
United States v. Miller
(1939)Held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to keep and bear a sawed-off shotgun without evidence that it has a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.
United States v. Rahimi
(2024)Upheld the federal law prohibiting persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms, applying and clarifying the Bruen historical tradition framework.
Exam Relevance
Second Amendment questions frequently appear on constitutional law exams, particularly after the Bruen decision changed the analytical framework. Focus on the shift from means-end scrutiny to the text, history, and tradition test, the scope of the individual right, and what types of regulations remain presumptively lawful under Heller's dicta.
Modern Applications
- State and local assault weapons bans and magazine capacity restrictions challenged under the Bruen framework
- Concealed carry permit requirements and constitutional carry laws
- Red flag laws (extreme risk protection orders) and due process challenges
- Ghost gun regulations and emerging firearm technologies
- Age-based restrictions on firearm purchases
Master Constitutional Law with AI-Powered Study Tools
20+ tools to help you study smarter. 3-day free trial, then $9.99/month.
Start Free Trial