Unlike many of the others, the Second Amendment is a single-purpose amendment. It reads as follows:

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.

For most of early American history, the Second Amendment was largely ignored. In terms of its importance, it was considered a fairly useless amendment, relegated to be almost as irrelevant as the Third Amendment (housing troops). It was not a source of power or debate. There was some reliance on the Amendment by freed slaves after the Civil War who sought to protect themselves from hostile former slave owners. But, it was later, during the civil rights movement of the 1960s that the Amendment was brought to the forefront of debate. During that decade, militant groups like the Black Panthers in Oakland, California, decided to arm themselves against what they considered to be hostile police, resulting in laws passed on state and federal levels that sought to curtail the ability to carry guns in public. These liberally-oriented groups opposed gun regulation based on their desire to protect themselves from what they perceived to be racist government agencies. At the same time, the new regulations were unpopular with more rural, conservative groups, who traditionally owned and used guns for sportsmanship and self-protection. Both groups, from far right to far left, pointed to the Second Amendment as the basis for opposition to gun regulation.

The Second Amendment became a flashpoint of controversy then as all sides attempted to dissect it to ascertain its meaning. The illogically placed commas and its introductory phrase led to two basic interpretations: either the Second Amendment guaranteed people individually the right to bear arms, which was the position adopted by those opposing gun regulation, or, in the alternative, it guaranteed the people collectively that right only in connection with a “militia” or military service, which became the position of those supporting gun control.

The debate raged on during the latter part of the twentieth century, and the U.S. Supreme Court stayed out of the argument for the most part, until 2008, when a case was crafted to force review and determination of the meaning of the Amendment. The Court finally took up the issue in D.C. v.Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

Heller was a resident of the District of Columbia who had purchased a gun, applied for a permit to keep it in his home, and was denied under the laws in the District of Columbia which made it illegal to own a gun for private use, even in one’s own home. He kept the gun at his brother’s house in Maryland for years until his own neighborhood became more and more crime-ridden and he wanted the gun for protection. He sought out groups that he knew were opposed to governmental regulation generally and the gun-control laws specifically and with their support, he commenced a lawsuit to have the D.C. gun laws declared to be in violation of his Second Amendment right to bear arms, and, therefore, unconstitutional. He even got a job as a special federal police officer (who carried a gun at work) in order to make himself a more “sympathetic plaintiff”. There were several others who joined in the lawsuit, but Heller was the only one who actually had a gun which he tried to have permitted and was denied, so he was the only plaintiff in the group that the Court allowed to continue; in other words, Heller was the only plaintiff found to have standing (an actual reason to complain). The case eventually was accepted for argument to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled that, based on a review of history including state constitutions in effect at the time of the passing of the 2nd Amendment, the object of the Amendment was to protect individual rights to bear arms, not necessarily only those connected to militia or military service. Having pronounced the meaning of the Amendment, the Court then turned to the law in effect in the District of Columbia which prevented Heller from having a gun in his home, and ruled that the law was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. The long-standing argument over the meaning of the words in the 2nd Amendment was over.

Although it was a landmark decision, the law at issue in the Heller case was a federal law in the District of Columbia. Without further review, the Heller decision did not necessarily apply to the states. In McDonald v Chicago, 561 U. S. ____ (2010) a law similar to the D.C. law that was struck down in Heller was in effect in Chicago, and prevented a man who lived there named Otis McDonald from buying a handgun for self-protection in his home. McDonald brought an action against the City of Chicago and argued that the Second Amendment guaranteed him the right to own a gun for lawful purposes, which included his own protection. The municipality argued that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states. The Supreme Court, having just decided Heller two years earlier, ruled in favor of McDonald, declared that the Second Amendment was in fact applicable to the states, that the right to bear arms was a fundamental right and struck down the Chicago law as unconstitutional.

It is noteworthy that in both cases the Court reiterated the rule that any right guaranteed by the Constitution and its Amendments is not an absolute right, and that states still had the ability and responsibility to regulate for the protection of their citizens. Therefore, it reasoned, regulations that restricted gun purchase, ownership, use and other aspects, provided they were reasonable, were within states’ rights. But absolute prohibitions, like the laws in D.C and Chicago, were not.

Cite: More Perfect podcast, Gunfight, by Adam Winkler