Supreme Court cases Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

1 supreme court cases

1.1 united states v. cruikshank
1.2 presser v. illinois
1.3 miller v. texas
1.4 robertson v. baldwin
1.5 united states v. miller
1.6 district of columbia v. heller

1.6.1 judgment
1.6.2 notes , analysis


1.7 mcdonald v. city of chicago
1.8 caetano v. massachusetts

supreme court cases

u.s. supreme court

in century following ratification of bill of rights, intended meaning , application of second amendment drew less interest in modern times. vast majority of regulation done states, , first case law on weapons regulation dealt state interpretations of second amendment. notable exception general rule houston v. moore, 18 u.s. 1 (1820), u.s. supreme court mentioned second amendment in aside. in dred scott decision, opinion of court stated if african americans considered u.s. citizens, give persons of negro race, recognised citizens in 1 state of union, right...to keep , carry arms wherever went.

state , federal courts historically have used 2 models interpret second amendment: individual rights model, holds individuals hold right bear arms, , collective rights model, holds right dependent on militia membership. collective rights model has been rejected supreme court, in favor of individual rights model.

the supreme court s primary second amendment cases include united states v. miller, (1939); district of columbia v. heller (2008); , mcdonald v. chicago (2010).

heller , mcdonald supported individual rights model, under second amendment protects right keep , bear arms first amendment protects right free speech. under model, militia composed of members supply own arms , ammunition. recognized method militias have historically been armed, supreme court in miller said:

the signification attributed term militia appears debates in convention, history , legislation of colonies , states, , writings of approved commentators. these show plainly enough militia comprised males physically capable of acting in concert common defense. body of citizens enrolled military discipline. , further, ordinarily when called service these men expected appear bearing arms supplied , of kind in common use @ time.

of collective rights model holds right arms based on militia membership, supreme court in heller said:

a purposive qualifying phrase contradicts word or phrase modifies unknown side of looking glass (except, apparently, in courses on linguistics). if bear arms means, think, carrying of arms, modifier can limit purpose of carriage ( purpose of self-defense or make war against king ). if bear arms means, petitioners , dissent think, carrying of arms military purposes, 1 cannot add purpose of killing game. right carry arms in militia purpose of killing game worthy of mad hatter.

united states v. cruikshank

in reconstruction era case of united states v. cruikshank, 92 u.s. 542 (1875), defendants white men had killed more sixty black people in known colfax massacre , had been charged conspiring prevent blacks exercising right bear arms. court dismissed charges, holding bill of rights restricted congress not private individuals. court concluded, [f]or protection in enjoyment, people must states.

the court stated [t]he second amendment...has no other effect restrict powers of national government ...... likewise, court held there no state action in case, , therefore fourteenth amendment not applicable:

the fourteenth amendment prohibits state depriving person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; adds nothing rights of 1 citizen against another.

thus, court held federal anti-ku-klux-klan statute unconstitutional applied in case.

presser v. illinois

in presser v. illinois, 116 u.s. 252 (1886), herman presser headed german-american paramilitary shooting organization , arrested leading parade group of 400 men, training , drilling military weapons declared intention fight, through streets of chicago violation of illinois law prohibited public drilling , parading in military style without permit governor.

at trial, presser argued state of illinois had violated second amendment rights. supreme court reaffirmed cruikshank, , held second amendment prevented neither states nor congress barring private militias parade arms; such right cannot claimed right independent of law. decision upheld states authority regulate militia , citizens had no right create own militias or own weapons semi-military purposes. court said: state cannot prohibit people therein keeping , bearing arms extent deprive united states of protection afforded them reserve military force.

miller v. texas

in miller v. texas, 153 u.s. 535 (1894), franklin miller convicted , sentenced executed shooting police officer death illegally carried handgun in violation of texas law. miller sought have conviction overturned, claiming second amendment rights violated , bill of rights should applied state law. supreme court ruled second amendment did not apply state laws such texas law: proceedings conducted under ordinary forms of criminal prosecutions there no denial of due process of law.

robertson v. baldwin

in robertson v. baldwin, 165 u.s. 275 (1897), court stated in dicta laws regulating concealed arms did not infringe upon right keep , bear arms , not violation of second amendment:

the law settled first ten amendments constitution, commonly known bill of rights, not intended lay down novel principles of government, embody guaranties , immunities had inherited our english ancestors, , had, time immemorial, been subject recognized exceptions arising necessities of case. in incorporating these principles fundamental law, there no intention of disregarding exceptions, continued recognized if had been formally expressed. thus, freedom of speech , of press (art. i) not permit publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious public morals or private reputation; right of people keep , bear arms (art. ii) not infringed laws prohibiting carrying of concealed weapons.

united states v. miller

in united states v. miller, 307 u.s. 174 (1939), supreme court rejected second amendment challenge national firearms act prohibiting interstate transportation of unregistered title ii weapons:

jack miller , frank layton did unlawfully ... transport in interstate commerce ... claremore ... oklahoma ... siloam springs ... arkansas firearm ... double barrel ... shotgun having barrel less 18 inches in length ... @ time of transporting said firearm in interstate commerce ... not having registered said firearm required section 1132d of title 26, united states code ... , not having in possession stamp-affixed written order ... provided section 1132c ...

in unanimous opinion authored justice mcreynolds, supreme court stated objection act usurps police power reserved states plainly untenable. court explained:

in absence of evidence tending show possession or use of shotgun having barrel of less eighteen inches in length @ time has reasonable relationship preservation or efficiency of regulated militia, cannot second amendment guarantees right keep , bear such instrument. not within judicial notice weapon part of ordinary military equipment or use contribute common defense.

gun rights advocates claim court in miller ruled second amendment protected right keep arms part of ordinary military equipment. claim court did not consider question of whether sawed-off shotgun in case applicable weapon personal defense, instead looking solely @ weapon s suitability common defense. law professor andrew mcclurg states, certainty miller failed give either side clear-cut victory. modern scholars recognize fact.

district of columbia v. heller

judgment

the justices decided heller

according syllabus prepared u.s. supreme court reporter of decisions, in district of columbia v. heller, 554 u.s. 570 (2008), supreme court held:

1. second amendment protects individual right possess firearm unconnected service in militia, , use arm traditionally lawful purposes, such self-defense within home. pp. 2–53.

(a) amendment’s prefatory clause announces purpose, not limit or expand scope of second part, operative clause. operative clause’s text , history demonstrate connotes individual right keep , bear arms. pp. 2–22.
(b) prefatory clause comports court’s interpretation of operative clause. militia comprised males physically capable of acting in concert common defense. antifederalists feared federal government disarm people in order disable citizens’ militia, enabling politicized standing army or select militia rule. response deny congress power abridge ancient right of individuals keep , bear arms, ideal of citizens’ militia preserved. pp. 22–28.
(c) court’s interpretation confirmed analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions preceded , followed second amendment. pp. 28–30.
(d) second amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals 3 state second amendment proposals unequivocally referred individual right bear arms. pp. 30–32.
(e) interpretation of second amendment scholars, courts , legislators, after ratification through late 19th century supports court’s conclusion. pp. 32–47.
(f) none of court’s precedents forecloses court’s interpretation. neither united states v. cruikshank, 92 u.s. 542, nor presser v. illinois, 116 u.s. 252, refutes individual-rights interpretation. united states v. miller, 307 u.s. 174, not limit right keep , bear arms militia purposes, rather limits type of weapon right applies used militia, i.e., in common use lawful purposes. pp. 47–54.


2. rights, second amendment right not unlimited. not right keep , carry weapon whatsoever in manner whatsoever , whatever purpose: example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under amendment or state analogues. court’s opinion should not taken cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on possession of firearms felons , mentally ill, or laws forbidding carrying of firearms in sensitive places such schools , government buildings, or laws imposing conditions , qualifications on commercial sale of arms. miller s holding sorts of weapons protected in common use @ time finds support in historical tradition of prohibiting carrying of dangerous , unusual weapons. pp. 54–56.
3. handgun ban , trigger-lock requirement (as applied self-defense) violate second amendment. district’s total ban on handgun possession in home amounts prohibition on entire class of arms americans overwhelmingly choose lawful purpose of self-defense. under of standards of scrutiny court has applied enumerated constitutional rights, prohibition – in place importance of lawful defense of self, family, , property acute – fail constitutional muster. similarly, requirement lawful firearm in home disassembled or bound trigger lock makes impossible citizens use arms core lawful purpose of self-defense , hence unconstitutional. because heller conceded @ oral argument d. c. licensing law permissible if not enforced arbitrarily , capriciously, court assumes license satisfy prayer relief , not address licensing requirement. assuming not disqualified exercising second amendment rights, district must permit heller register handgun , must issue him license carry in home. pp. 56–64.

there similar legal summaries of supreme court s findings in heller. example, illinois supreme court in people v. aguilar (2013), summed heller s findings , reasoning:

in district of columbia v. heller, 554 u.s. 570 (2008), supreme court undertook first-ever in-depth examination of second amendment’s meaning id. @ 635. after lengthy historical discussion, court concluded second amendment guarantee[s] individual right possess , carry weapons in case of confrontation (id. @ 592); central right inherent right of self-defense (id. @ 628); home need defense of self, family, , property acute (id. @ 628); , that, above other interests, second amendment elevates right of law-abiding, responsible citizens use arms in defense of hearth , home (id. @ 635). based on understanding, court held district of columbia law banning handgun possession in home violated second amendment. id. @ 635.

notes , analysis

heller has been described landmark decision. clarify ruling not invalidate broad range of existing firearm laws, majority opinion, written justice antonin scalia, said:

like rights, right secured second amendment not unlimited ... although not undertake exhaustive historical analysis today of full scope of second amendment, nothing in our opinion should taken cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on possession of firearms felons , mentally ill, or laws forbidding carrying of firearms in sensitive places such schools , government buildings, or laws imposing conditions , qualifications on commercial sale of arms.

the court s statement right limited has been discussed lower courts , media. majority opinion said amendment s prefatory clause (referencing militia ) serves clarify operative clause (referencing people ), not limit scope of operative clause, because militia in colonial america consisted of subset of people ....

justice stevens dissenting opinion, joined 3 other dissenters, said:

the question presented case not whether second amendment protects collective right or individual right. surely protects right can enforced individuals. conclusion second amendment protects individual right not tell scope of right.

stevens went on following:

the second amendment adopted protect right of people of each of several states maintain well-regulated militia. response concerns raised during ratification of constitution power of congress disarm state militias , create national standing army posed intolerable threat sovereignty of several states. neither text of amendment nor arguments advanced proponents evidenced slightest interest in limiting legislature’s authority regulate private civilian uses of firearms. specifically, there no indication framers of amendment intended enshrine common-law right of self-defense in constitution.

this dissent called majority opinion strained , unpersuasive , said right possess firearm exists in relation militia , d.c. laws constitute permissible regulation. in majority opinion, justice stevens interpretation of phrase keep , bear arms referred hybrid definition stevens purportedly chose in order avoid incoherent , [g]rotesque idiomatic meeting.

justice breyer, in own dissent joined stevens, souter, , ginsburg, stated entire court subscribes proposition amendment protects individual right – i.e., 1 separately possessed, , may separately enforced, each person on whom conferred .

regarding term regulated , majority opinion said, adjective well-regulated implies nothing more imposition of proper discipline , training. majority opinion quoted spooner unconstitutionality of slavery saying right bear arms necessary wanted take stand against slavery. majority opinion stated that:

a purposive qualifying phrase contradicts word or phrase modifies unknown side of looking glass (except, apparently, in courses on linguistics). if bear arms means, think, carrying of arms, modifier can limit purpose of carriage ( purpose of self-defense or make war against king ). if bear arms means, petitioners , dissent think, carrying of arms military purposes, 1 cannot add purpose of killing game. right carry arms in militia purpose of killing game worthy of mad hatter.

the dissenting justices not persuaded argument.

reaction heller has varied, many sources giving focus ruling referring being first in supreme court history read second amendment protecting individual right. majority opinion, authored justice scalia, gives explanation of majority legal reasoning behind decision. majority opinion made clear recent ruling did not foreclose court’s prior interpretations given in united states v. cruikshank, presser v. illinois, , united states v. miller though these earlier rulings did not limit right keep , bear arms solely militia purposes, rather limits type of weapon right applies used militia (i.e., in common use lawful purposes).

heller pertained 3 district of columbia ordinances involving restrictions on firearms amounting total ban. these 3 ordinances ban on handgun registration, requirement firearms in home either disassembled or have trigger lock, , licensing requirement prohibits carrying unlicensed firearm in home, such 1 room another.

under of standards of scrutiny court has applied enumerated constitutional rights, prohibition – in place importance of lawful defense of self, family, , property acute – fail constitutional muster.... because heller conceded @ oral argument district s licensing law permissible if not enforced arbitrarily , capriciously, court assumed license satisfy prayer relief , did not address licensing requirement. assuming not disqualified exercising second amendment rights, district must permit heller register handgun , must issue him license carry in home.

justice ginsburg has been vocal critic of heller. speaking in interview on public radio station wnyc, called second amendment outdated, saying:

when no longer need people keep muskets in home, second amendment has no function ... if court had interpreted second amendment, court have said amendment important when nation new; gave qualified right keep , bear arms, 1 purpose – , purpose of having militiamen able fight preserve nation.

mcdonald v. city of chicago

on june 28, 2010, court in mcdonald v. city of chicago, 561 u.s. 3025 (2010), held second amendment incorporated, saying [i]t clear framers , ratifiers of fourteenth amendment counted right keep , bear arms among fundamental rights necessary our system of ordered liberty. means court ruled second amendment limits state , local governments same extent limits federal government. remanded case regarding chicago handgun prohibition. 4 of 5 justices in majority voted way of due process clause of fourteenth amendment, while fifth justice, clarence thomas, voted through amendment s privileges or immunities clause.

justice thomas noted privileges or immunities clause refers citizens whereas due process clause refers more broadly person , , therefore thomas reserved issue of non-citizens later decision. after mcdonald, many questions second amendment remain unsettled, such whether non-citizens protected through equal protection clause.

in people v. aguilar (2013), illinois supreme court summed central second amendment findings in mcdonald:

two years later, in mcdonald v. city of chicago, 561 u.s. ___, ___, 130 s. ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), supreme court held second amendment right recognized in heller applicable states through due process clause of fourteenth amendment. in holding, court reiterated second amendment protects right keep , bear arms purpose of self-defense (id. @ ___, 130 s. ct. @ 3026); individual self-defense ‘the central component’ of second amendment right (emphasis in original) (id. @ ___, 130 s. ct. @ 3036 (quoting heller, 554 u.s. @ 599)); , [s]elf-defense basic right, recognized many legal systems ancient times present day (id. @ ___, 130 s. ct. @ 3036).

caetano v. massachusetts

on march 21, 2016, in per curiam decision court vacated massachusetts supreme judicial court decision upholding conviction of woman carried stun gun self defense. court reiterated heller , mcdonald decisions saying second amendment extends, prima facie, instruments constitute bearable arms, not in existence @ time of founding , second amendment right applicable states , , protection not restricted weapons useful in warfare .