Fiveable
Fiveable

or

Log in

Find what you need to study


Light

Find what you need to study

3.5 Second Amendment: Rights to Bear Arms

5 min readfebruary 11, 2023

Jed Quiaoit

Jed Quiaoit

Annika Tekumulla

Annika Tekumulla

Jed Quiaoit

Jed Quiaoit

Annika Tekumulla

Annika Tekumulla

The of the United States Constitution reads:

"A , 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 much debate and controversy over the years, with differing interpretations of its meaning and application. The original intent of the was to ensure that states had the ability to maintain a , independent of the federal government's control. This was seen as a necessary safeguard against potential tyranny by the government.

https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fiveable-92889.appspot.com/o/images%2F-GTh0enzx5JLz.jpg?alt=media&token=9ae09233-f0ca-428a-b283-1f63f6a0f4b6

Source: The History on the Net

Interpreting the Amendment

The amendment's wording has been the subject of much debate, with the words "" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" being interpreted differently by different groups.

(1) Self-Defense

One interpretation of the is that it protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms for personal defense. This interpretation is often used to support the argument for expanded access to firearms, and has been a driving force behind efforts to prevent restrictions on gun ownership. Proponents of this interpretation point to the use of the words "the right of the people" in the amendment as evidence of its protection of individual rights.

(2) Militias Only!

On the other hand, others interpret the as being limited to the context of a and not extending to individual rights to keep and bear arms for personal defense. This interpretation is often used to support the argument for stricter gun control measures, such as background checks and restrictions on certain types of firearms.

Regardless of interpretation, the remains a highly controversial issue in the United States. It has been the subject of numerous court cases, with the Supreme Court ultimately ruling that the protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms for personal defense. However, the exact extent of this right and the types of restrictions that can be placed on it continue to be debated and determined through court cases and legislative action.

Optional Supreme Court Case Examples

As the title suggests, these are not required for the AP exam, but they are good examples on how the Supreme Court's attitude on -related arguments shifted and continued over time.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

The case was a landmark legal challenge that addressed the issue of whether or not the protects an individual's right to bear arms from being infringed upon by state and local governments.

The plaintiff, , was a resident of Chicago who sought to purchase a handgun but was restricted by the city's new regulations on handgun ownership. McDonald argued that these regulations violated his rights under the , which ensures that no state can make laws that infringe upon the rights and privileges of its citizens.

https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fiveable-92889.appspot.com/o/images%2F-zRcHQFcHw9mJ.jpg?alt=media&token=16465af8-c0ce-4238-bf04-378934a03f77

Source: Politico

In its ruling, the Supreme Court agreed with McDonald, using the as the basis for striking down the gun control laws in Chicago. The Court held that the protects an individual's right to possess firearms, regardless of their intended use, and that this right applies equally to state and local governments as it does to the federal government. As a result of this decision, the case became a key milestone in the ongoing debate over the interpretation and application of the .

This case also reinforced the principle that the guarantees individual citizens the right to keep and bear arms, and that this right cannot be arbitrarily restricted by state and local governments. The decision continues to have a significant impact on discussions about gun control laws, and remains a highly controversial issue in American society and politics today.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

The case was a legal challenge that reached the Supreme Court of the United States in 2008. The case involved a resident of Washington D.C., named , who sought to register a handgun for personal use but was restricted by the city's strict regulations on handgun ownership. Heller argued that these regulations violated his rights under the of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.

The Supreme Court heard the case and, in a 5-4 decision, agreed with Heller. The Court held that the protects an individual's right to possess firearms, regardless of their intended use, and that this right applies equally to the federal government as it does to state and local governments. The Court also found that the D.C. law at issue was unconstitutional because it prohibited residents from keeping handguns in their homes for , which the Court deemed a core component of the right.

The decision was highly controversial and sparked intense debate both within and outside of legal circles. Some argued that the decision represented a significant victory for gun rights advocates, while others believed it was a blow to efforts to regulate guns and prevent gun violence. Despite the divisive nature of the case, the decision remains a landmark case in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court and continues to shape discussions about gun control and the interpretation of the .

Fast Forward to Today

The has become increasingly important in recent years because of the increase in mass shootings in the United States. The debate on the safety of society versus individual rights is yet again relevant as groups such as the National Rifle Association, , and other groups rally for their opinions on gun control. 

https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fiveable-92889.appspot.com/o/images%2F-lENREAcUTmme.jpg?alt=media&token=53f03184-3b21-44da-8c5f-8c3f1e8c9561

Source: The Atlantic

🎥 Watch: AP GOPO - 1st and 2nd Amendments

Key Terms to Review (11)

Dick Heller

: Dick Heller is a former police officer who was the plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, which successfully challenged Washington D.C.'s handgun ban.

District of Columbia v. Heller

: District of Columbia v. Heller was a landmark Supreme Court case in 2008 where it was ruled that individuals have a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense purposes.

Fourteenth Amendment

: The Fourteenth Amendment is a part of the U.S. Constitution that guarantees equal protection under the law and extends citizenship rights.

March for Our Lives

: March For Our Lives is a student-led demonstration supporting stronger gun violence prevention measures. It was organized by survivors of the February 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

McDonald v. Chicago

: A landmark Supreme Court case in 2010 where it was ruled that an individual's right to bear arms is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to state and local governments.

Militias Only!

: This term refers to the interpretation of the Second Amendment that states only organized militias, not individual citizens, have the right to bear arms.

National Rifle Association (NRA)

: The National Rifle Association is a non-profit organization in the United States that advocates for gun rights. Founded in 1871, the group informs its members about firearm-related legislation and promotes marksmanship and firearm safety.

Otis McDonald

: Otis McDonald was a retired maintenance engineer who challenged Chicago's gun ban in the Supreme Court case McDonald v. Chicago, leading to a landmark decision affirming an individual's right to bear arms.

Second Amendment

: The Second Amendment is a part of the U.S. Constitution that protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

Self-Defense

: Self-defense is legally justified use of force against another person when you reasonably believe you're at immediate risk of harm from them.

Well-regulated militia

: A well-regulated militia refers to a group of citizens who are trained in weaponry and tactics and can be called upon for military service if needed.

3.5 Second Amendment: Rights to Bear Arms

5 min readfebruary 11, 2023

Jed Quiaoit

Jed Quiaoit

Annika Tekumulla

Annika Tekumulla

Jed Quiaoit

Jed Quiaoit

Annika Tekumulla

Annika Tekumulla

The of the United States Constitution reads:

"A , 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 much debate and controversy over the years, with differing interpretations of its meaning and application. The original intent of the was to ensure that states had the ability to maintain a , independent of the federal government's control. This was seen as a necessary safeguard against potential tyranny by the government.

https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fiveable-92889.appspot.com/o/images%2F-GTh0enzx5JLz.jpg?alt=media&token=9ae09233-f0ca-428a-b283-1f63f6a0f4b6

Source: The History on the Net

Interpreting the Amendment

The amendment's wording has been the subject of much debate, with the words "" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" being interpreted differently by different groups.

(1) Self-Defense

One interpretation of the is that it protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms for personal defense. This interpretation is often used to support the argument for expanded access to firearms, and has been a driving force behind efforts to prevent restrictions on gun ownership. Proponents of this interpretation point to the use of the words "the right of the people" in the amendment as evidence of its protection of individual rights.

(2) Militias Only!

On the other hand, others interpret the as being limited to the context of a and not extending to individual rights to keep and bear arms for personal defense. This interpretation is often used to support the argument for stricter gun control measures, such as background checks and restrictions on certain types of firearms.

Regardless of interpretation, the remains a highly controversial issue in the United States. It has been the subject of numerous court cases, with the Supreme Court ultimately ruling that the protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms for personal defense. However, the exact extent of this right and the types of restrictions that can be placed on it continue to be debated and determined through court cases and legislative action.

Optional Supreme Court Case Examples

As the title suggests, these are not required for the AP exam, but they are good examples on how the Supreme Court's attitude on -related arguments shifted and continued over time.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

The case was a landmark legal challenge that addressed the issue of whether or not the protects an individual's right to bear arms from being infringed upon by state and local governments.

The plaintiff, , was a resident of Chicago who sought to purchase a handgun but was restricted by the city's new regulations on handgun ownership. McDonald argued that these regulations violated his rights under the , which ensures that no state can make laws that infringe upon the rights and privileges of its citizens.

https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fiveable-92889.appspot.com/o/images%2F-zRcHQFcHw9mJ.jpg?alt=media&token=16465af8-c0ce-4238-bf04-378934a03f77

Source: Politico

In its ruling, the Supreme Court agreed with McDonald, using the as the basis for striking down the gun control laws in Chicago. The Court held that the protects an individual's right to possess firearms, regardless of their intended use, and that this right applies equally to state and local governments as it does to the federal government. As a result of this decision, the case became a key milestone in the ongoing debate over the interpretation and application of the .

This case also reinforced the principle that the guarantees individual citizens the right to keep and bear arms, and that this right cannot be arbitrarily restricted by state and local governments. The decision continues to have a significant impact on discussions about gun control laws, and remains a highly controversial issue in American society and politics today.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

The case was a legal challenge that reached the Supreme Court of the United States in 2008. The case involved a resident of Washington D.C., named , who sought to register a handgun for personal use but was restricted by the city's strict regulations on handgun ownership. Heller argued that these regulations violated his rights under the of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.

The Supreme Court heard the case and, in a 5-4 decision, agreed with Heller. The Court held that the protects an individual's right to possess firearms, regardless of their intended use, and that this right applies equally to the federal government as it does to state and local governments. The Court also found that the D.C. law at issue was unconstitutional because it prohibited residents from keeping handguns in their homes for , which the Court deemed a core component of the right.

The decision was highly controversial and sparked intense debate both within and outside of legal circles. Some argued that the decision represented a significant victory for gun rights advocates, while others believed it was a blow to efforts to regulate guns and prevent gun violence. Despite the divisive nature of the case, the decision remains a landmark case in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court and continues to shape discussions about gun control and the interpretation of the .

Fast Forward to Today

The has become increasingly important in recent years because of the increase in mass shootings in the United States. The debate on the safety of society versus individual rights is yet again relevant as groups such as the National Rifle Association, , and other groups rally for their opinions on gun control. 

https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fiveable-92889.appspot.com/o/images%2F-lENREAcUTmme.jpg?alt=media&token=53f03184-3b21-44da-8c5f-8c3f1e8c9561

Source: The Atlantic

🎥 Watch: AP GOPO - 1st and 2nd Amendments

Key Terms to Review (11)

Dick Heller

: Dick Heller is a former police officer who was the plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, which successfully challenged Washington D.C.'s handgun ban.

District of Columbia v. Heller

: District of Columbia v. Heller was a landmark Supreme Court case in 2008 where it was ruled that individuals have a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense purposes.

Fourteenth Amendment

: The Fourteenth Amendment is a part of the U.S. Constitution that guarantees equal protection under the law and extends citizenship rights.

March for Our Lives

: March For Our Lives is a student-led demonstration supporting stronger gun violence prevention measures. It was organized by survivors of the February 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

McDonald v. Chicago

: A landmark Supreme Court case in 2010 where it was ruled that an individual's right to bear arms is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to state and local governments.

Militias Only!

: This term refers to the interpretation of the Second Amendment that states only organized militias, not individual citizens, have the right to bear arms.

National Rifle Association (NRA)

: The National Rifle Association is a non-profit organization in the United States that advocates for gun rights. Founded in 1871, the group informs its members about firearm-related legislation and promotes marksmanship and firearm safety.

Otis McDonald

: Otis McDonald was a retired maintenance engineer who challenged Chicago's gun ban in the Supreme Court case McDonald v. Chicago, leading to a landmark decision affirming an individual's right to bear arms.

Second Amendment

: The Second Amendment is a part of the U.S. Constitution that protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

Self-Defense

: Self-defense is legally justified use of force against another person when you reasonably believe you're at immediate risk of harm from them.

Well-regulated militia

: A well-regulated militia refers to a group of citizens who are trained in weaponry and tactics and can be called upon for military service if needed.


© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.

AP® and SAT® are trademarks registered by the College Board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website.


© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.

AP® and SAT® are trademarks registered by the College Board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website.