Your Guide to Famous Supreme Court Cases About the 2nd Amendment

The United States Supreme Court did not rule until 2008 that a person has a 2nd Amendment right to keep a weapon for self-defense. The right to bear arms has been a matter of controversy, with several famous supreme court cases.

The amendment's key purpose has been debated for hundreds of years. Some believed the amendment was designed for the militia. Other's thought it dealt with the powers between state and federal government. There was also disagreement over whether or not the amendment provided individual citizens the right to bear arms.

Gun Law Rights and Restrictions

The meaning of the second amendment has been argued as far back as 1791. The 2nd Amendment states that "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."

Carl Bogus, a law professor at Roger Williams University, believed that James Madison wrote the second amendment to reassure citizens of their safety in his home state of Virginia. Slave owners were terrified of revolts from slaves.

In the south, the militia was used for slave-control to prevent revolt. The amendment gave the states the right to have an armed militia for their own protection.

A year after the amendment was entered the Federal government passed a law requiring every man eligible to serve his local militia to obtain a gun and register it. This law remained in effect until 1903.

The reason for this law was that the constitution gave congress the power to call for the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. The militia was made up of all males physically capable of taking part in the common defense. When the men were called to service they were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves.

Changes from 1866 to 1977

The 1866 Civil Rights Act gave freed slaves the right to bear arms. In 1967 Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which banned the public carry of loaded guns in cities.

Reagan signed the Mulford Act because he did not see any reason for a citizen to carry a loaded weapon on the streets. The National Rifle Association (NRA) supported the Mulford Act but opposed the Brady Act 26 years later.

From 1930 to 1977 the NRA had supported restrictions on machine guns and public carry. Then in 1977 angry hardliners took over the organization and began to campaign against ownership restrictions.

It doesn't matter whether you own a handgun, old-fashioned rifle, or L2D Combat weapons, there will be ongoing controversy and changes in laws that may affect gun ownership and use.

Famous Supreme Court Cases

Although the Supreme Court has been hearing cases regarding the 2nd Amendment since 1857, it was not until 2008 that the court confirmed a person's right to keep a weapon at home for self-defense. Here is a look at some famous supreme court cases.

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)

This case determined that the federal government had no power to exercise beyond what the 2nd Amendment allows, and could not deny any right it reserved. They stated that Congress cannot deny people the right to bear arms. They also stated that a person who transports his own property (his gun) into a territory of the United States and has not violated any laws could not be prosecuted.

This case also showed the intense racial discourse of the time. The opinion held that blacks could not be U.S. Citizens. They did not believe the slaveholders of the original 13 states would have consented to a constitution that considered blacks to be citizens. It was felt that allowing the "negro race" to bear arms would produce discontent and insubordination, which would endanger the peace and safety of the states.

United States v. Cruikshank (1876)

This case involved several defendants who were tried under the Civil Rights Act of 1870 for lynching two blacks. The defendants were accused of conspiring to interfere with the black person's rights to peaceably assemble and keep and bear arms. The court threw out the indictment.

The court held that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms was not a right granted by the Constitution. They felt that the amendment referred to infringement by congress and restricted the national government. The court stated citizens needed to look for their own protection against violations by fellow citizens.

Presser v. Illinois (1886)

The state of Illinois had a law that barred any body of men other than an organized militia of the state and troops of the United States from associating as a military company and from drilling with arms in any city or town of the state. The court held that the law did not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The Court opinion sited U.S. v. Cruikshank that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the constitution. They confirmed that the only infringement is on Congress and that the purpose of the amendment is to restrict the powers of the national government.

Miller v. Texas (1894)

In this case, the Plaintiff claimed that a Texas Law was forbidding the ability to carry weapons. It also stated that Texas was authorizing an arrest, without a warrant, of any person violating that law.

The claim was that the law was in violation of both second and fourth amendment rights. The Court held that the restrictions of those amendments operate only on the Federal power and not upon the state courts.

Robertson v. Baldwin (1897)

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed on by-laws that prohibit carrying concealed weapons.

United States v. Miller (1939)

The Defendant in this matter was charged with unlawfully, knowingly, willfully, and feloniously transporting a double-barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun with a barrel less than 18". He had transported the gun from the town of Claremore, Oklahoma to Siloam Springs, Arkansas. This was contrary to the National Firearms Act.

The court opinion was that there was no evidence that the possession or use of a shotgun with a barrel less than 18" in length was reasonable to the preservation of a well-regulated militia. They could not say that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed the right to keep and bear such a weapon. 

Lewis v. United States (1980)

This case involved a Plaintiff who was a convicted felon in possession. Lewis claimed his felony conviction was uncounseled and shouldn't be considered on constitutional grounds. The court determined that legislative restrictions on firearms do not invade any constitutional liberties.

The court's reasoning was that the 2nd amendment does not guarantee the right to keep and bear firearms. For that reason, it does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990)

This case dealt with whether foreign citizens on foreign soil are protected by the Bill of Rights, or if it only applied to U.S. soil or U.S. residents. This dealt with an incident that happened in Mexico.

It was determined that the right to be protected by the second amendment refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community. It also applies to those who have developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered a part of a community.

Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992)

The court's opinion in this matter was that liberty is not a series of isolated points. The referred to points are rights such as freedom of speech, the taking of property, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, or the right to keep and bear arms.

Those rights as a group are collectively a person's freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints. In making that determination they stated that reasonable and sensitive judgment must be made with careful scrutiny of the state's need to justify their abridgments.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

This was the first time in history where the Supreme Court confirmed an individual's right to keep a weapon at home for self-defense. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion and included exceptions such as bans on unusual and dangerous weapons, sales to domestic abusers and people with mental illness. The opinion also stated that states and cities can ban firearms from places like government buildings.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York (2019)

This was the first Supreme Court case to be heard on 2nd Amendment rights in a decade. The case was based on a New York City rule that limited where gun owners with a certain kind of permit could take their guns. When the Supreme Court announced they would hear the case the city changed their gun rules. 

This resolved the controversy. The city asked the court to dismiss the case as moot. Discussion on whether or not to dismiss was scheduled on October 1, 2019. The parties were ordered to submit briefs, and arguments were held on December 2, 2019. The opinion is not yet out.

2nd Amendment Rights Future

The meaning of the 2nd Amendment has been analyzed for hundreds of years and will continue to be analyzed and challenged. The 2008 Heller replacement of the standard of an "obvious purpose" of a "well-regulated militia" with a modern ruling on a person's rights to bear arms shows progress. Don't hesitate to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights.

© 2023 Lawyer Herald All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
* This is a contributed article and this content does not necessarily represent the views of lawyerherald.com