Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN Second Amendment

The Second Amendment & The U.S. Supreme Court

Thursday, May 4, 2000

By by Stefan B. Tahmassebi

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.


By Stefan B. Tahmassebi

Despite anti-gunners' claims that the Second Amendment is a "collective right," the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized it as an individual right in several landmark cases.

Gun prohibitionists often claim that the United States Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms, but offers only a "collective right" for the organized military forces of the states to have governmentally owned arms. This "Collective Rights" approach is a newcomer to theories of constitutional law and made its first appearance only in the Twentieth Century. Not only does the "Collective Rights" approach run counter to overwhelming textual and historical evidence, but the Supreme Court has never held such a theory applicable to the Second Amendment.

Dred Scott v. Sandford was the first case in which the Supreme Court mentioned the right to keep and bear arms. The issue before this pre-Civil War and pre-emancipation court was whether blacks were "citizens." The court stated that if blacks were citizens, they would have the same constitutional protections afforded to white citizens, which included the right to keep and bear arms.

"It would give to persons of the negro race . . . the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, . . . and it would give them the full liberty of speech . . . ; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went." The court specifically placed the right to keep and bear arms in the same category as the other fundamental individual rights that are protected from governmental infringement by the Bill of Rights: "Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding."

Nowhere in the opinion does the court suggest that the right to keep and bear arms differs from other fundamental rights and protects only the state government's organized military. Clearly, the court considered the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental individual right of every "citizen."

United States v. Cruikshank, a post-Civil War and post-emancipation case, arose out of the disarmament and murder of freed blacks in Louisiana (the "Colfax Massacre"). Klansmen were subsequently charged by the federal prosecutor with a conspiracy to prevent blacks from exercising their civil rights, including the right of peaceful assembly and the right to keep and bear arms. The court recognized that the right to peacefully assemble and the right of the people to keep and bear arms were natural rights which even preexisted the Constitution.

The court stated, however, that the First and Second Amendment rights were protections against the federal government only, and did not restrict state government action. The court held that because these fundamental rights existed independently of the Constitution, and because the First and Second Amendments guaranteed only that these rights shall not be infringed by the federal Congress, the federal government had no power to punish a violation of these rights by the Klansmen, who were private individuals. Although the Second Amendment protected a citizen from having his right to keep and bear arms violated by the federal government, the Second Amendment did not protect a citizen from the acts of other private persons.

Clearly, the court considered the right to keep and bear arms (and the right to peaceably assemble) as a fundamental individual civil right of each citizen, which the federal government could not infringe. The court never even suggested that the Second Amendment guaranteed only a state's right to maintain militias rather than an individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

Presser v. Illinois involved an Illinois statute which did not prohibit the possession of arms, but merely prohibited "bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law . . . ." Presser was indicted for parading a private military unit of 400 armed men through the streets of Chicago without a license. The court concluded that the Illinois statute did not infringe the Second Amendment since the statute did not prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms but rather prohibited the forming of private military organizations and the performance of military exercises in town by groups of armed men without a license to do so. The court found that such prohibitions simply "do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

The Supreme Court seemed to affirm the holding in Cruikshank that the Second Amendment protected individuals only against action by the federal government. However, in the very next paragraph, the court suggests that state governments cannot forbid individuals to keep and bear arms. After stating that "all citizens capable of bearing arms" constitute the "militia," the Court held that the "States cannot . . . prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."

In Miller v. Texas, the defendant challenged a Texas statute on the bearing of pistols as violative of the Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The problem for Miller was that he failed to timely raise these defenses in the state trial and appellate courts, raising these issues for the first time in the U.S. Supreme Court. While the court held that the Second and Fourth Amendment (prohibiting warrantless searches), of themselves, did not limit state action (as opposed to federal action), the court did not address the defendant's claim that these constitutional protections were made effective against state government action by the Fourteenth Amendment, because Miller did not raise these issues in a timely manner. The Court, thus, left open the possibility that these constitutional rights were made effective against state governments by the Fourteenth Amendment. Lastly, it should be noted that in this case, as in the other Supreme Court cases, the defendant was not a member of the Armed Forces, and yet the Supreme Court did not dismiss Miller's claim on that ground; thus, Miller, as a private citizen, did enjoy individual Second Amendment protection, even if he was not enrolled in the National Guard or Armed Forces.

Robertson v. Baldwin did not involve a Second Amendment claim, but in discussing the 13th Amendment, the Court again recognized the Second Amendment as a "fundamental" individual right of citizens; which, like the other fundamental rights, is not absolute. "The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the 'Bill of Rights', were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions, arising from the necessities of the case. . ." . Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons . . . .

The reference to state laws that prohibited the carrying of concealed weapons by individuals suggests that the Supreme Court

TRENDING NOW
New “Watchlist” Sends Outspoken Academics into a Tailspin

News  

Friday, December 9, 2016

New “Watchlist” Sends Outspoken Academics into a Tailspin

A new “watchlist” is ruffling feathers in the academic community, with critics calling it “Orwellian,” “grotesque,” “an assault on academic freedom,” and even “the right’s new McCarythyism.”

Gun Control Group: Interest in Guns, Music Signals Intention to Murder

News  

Friday, December 9, 2016

Gun Control Group: Interest in Guns, Music Signals Intention to Murder

Sandy Hook Promise (SHP), an activist group out of Connecticut, has created a heart-tugging “public service announcement” that it hopes will capture the public’s imagination.  

Ohio: Important Self-Defense Bill Heads to Governor Kasich!

Friday, December 9, 2016

Ohio: Important Self-Defense Bill Heads to Governor Kasich!

Early this morning, Sub. Senate Bill 199, now including original language from Sub. House Bill 48, overwhelmingly passed the House and final concurrence in the Senate, despite the efforts of misguided anti-gun groups.  The bill will ...

The Year of the Gun: Carry Permit, Sales Figures Explode in 2016

News  

Friday, December 9, 2016

The Year of the Gun: Carry Permit, Sales Figures Explode in 2016

The number of persons in the United States with concealed carry permits has reached an all-time high of close to 15 million. John R. Lott, Jr. of the Crime Prevention Research Center explains:

Ohio Concealed Carry Bill Passes Assembly with Impressive Majority

News  

Friday, December 9, 2016

Ohio Concealed Carry Bill Passes Assembly with Impressive Majority

The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) applauds the Ohio General Assembly for its overwhelming support of legislation that expands the rights of concealed carry permit holders in the Buckeye state.

Corporate Lawyers Join Activists to Restrict Gun Rights

News  

Friday, December 9, 2016

Corporate Lawyers Join Activists to Restrict Gun Rights

This week, the New York Times announced that some of the nation’s largest law firms are forming a coalition with gun control advocates to provide tens of millions of dollars of free legal services to battle the ...

Ohio: Contact your State Legislators Today in Support of Important Self-Defense Bill!

Thursday, December 8, 2016

Ohio: Contact your State Legislators Today in Support of Important Self-Defense Bill!

Today, Sub. Senate Bill 199 is expected to receive its final votes; however, anti-gun groups are actively trying to defeat this bill! It is important that you contact your state legislators TODAY and tell them that an ...

California: Bullet Button Guns Must be Purchased and Received by Dec 31st

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

California: Bullet Button Guns Must be Purchased and Received by Dec 31st

Recently the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms sent out a notice to California firearms dealers with information regarding the recently passed “assault weapon” legislation, SB880 and AB 1135.

November Gun-Check Numbers Break Records While Surpassing Expectations

News  

Friday, December 9, 2016

November Gun-Check Numbers Break Records While Surpassing Expectations

The number of firearm-related queries to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) in November 2016 set new records despite predictions that Donald Trump’s defeat of Hillary Clinton would diminish gun buyer demand.

Gun Control Supporters Race to Embarrass Themselves Following OSU Stabbing Attack

News  

Thursday, December 1, 2016

Gun Control Supporters Race to Embarrass Themselves Following OSU Stabbing Attack

Guinness World Records may refuse to acknowledge feats pertaining to the lawful exercise of right to keep and bear arms, but how about a world record for most shameless attempt to politicize tragedy? The competition would ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -
NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.