THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Nelson Lund

George Mason University School of Law

Adam Winkler

UCLA School of Law

National Constitution Center, Interactive Constitution

George Mason University

Legal Studies Research Paper Series

LS 15-23

This paper is available on the Social Science Research Network

at ssrn.com/abstract=2662700



TheSecondAmendment



NationalConstitutionCenter

InteractiveConstitution



http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive‐

constitution/amendments/amendment‐ii



CommonInterpretation



ByNelsonLundandAdamWinkler



ModerndebatesabouttheSecondAmendmenthavefocusedonwhetheritprotectsaprivate

rightofindividualstokeepandbeararms,orarightthatcanbeexercisedonlythroughmilitia 

organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long

aftertheBillofRightswasadopted.



Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to

oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting

thegovernmenttoraisearmies(consistingoffull ‐time paidtroops)onlywhenneededtofight

foreign adversaries.

For other  purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other

emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who

suppliedtheirownweaponsandreceivedsomepart‐time,unpaidmilitarytraining.



Theonsetofwardoesnotalwaysallowtimetoraise andtrainanarmy,andtheRevolutionary

Warshowedthatmilitia forcescould notbereliedonfor nationaldefense. TheConstitutional

Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered

authoritytoestablishpeacetimestandingarmiesandtoregulatethemilitia.



This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the

chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti‐Federalists argued that the proposed

Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal

usurpation.TheFederalistsrespondedthatfearsoffederaloppressionwereoverblown,inpart

becausetheAmericanpeoplewere

armedandwouldbealmostimpossibletosubduethrough

militaryforce.



Implicitin thedebate betweenFederalistsand Anti‐Federalistsweretwo sharedassumptions.

First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal

authorityoverthearmyandmilitia.Second,thatthefederalgovernment shouldnothave any

authorityatalltodisarmthecitizenry.Theydisagreedonlyaboutwhetheranarmedpopulace

couldadequatelydeterfederaloppression.



TheSecond AmendmentconcedednothingtotheAnti‐Federalists’desiretosharplycurtailthe

military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in

the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread

agreementthatthefederalgovernmentshouldnothavethepowertoinfringetherightofthe

peopletokeepandbeararms,anymorethanitshouldhavethepowertoabridgethefreedom

ofspeechorprohibitthefreeexerciseofreligion.



Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state‐based

militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. The

nation’s military establishment has become enormously more powerful than eighteenth

century armies. We  still hear political  rhetoric about federal tyranny, but most Americans do

not fear the nation’s armed forces and virtually no one thinks that an armed populace could

defeatthoseforcesinbattle.Furthermore,eighteenthcenturyciviliansroutinelykeptathome

theverysameweaponstheywouldneedifcalledtoserveinthemilitia,whilemodernsoldiers

are equipped with weapons thatdi ffer significantly from those generallythought a ppropriate

for civilian uses. Civilians no longer expect to use their household weapons for militia duty,

although they still keep and bear arms to defend against common criminals (as well as for

huntingandotherformsofrecreation).



Thelawhasalsochanged.WhilestatesintheFoundingeraregulatedguns—blackswereoften

prohibited from possessing firearms and militia weapons were frequently registered on

government rolls—gun laws today are more extensive and controversial. Another important

legal developmentwas theadoptionof theFourteenth Amendment.The SecondAmendment

originally applied only to the federal government, leaving the states to regulate weapons as

theysaw

fit.AlthoughthereissubstantialevidencethatthePrivilegesorImmunitiesClauseof

the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to protect the right of individuals to keep and bear

armsfrominfringementbythestates,theSupremeCourtrejectedthisinterpretationinUnited

Statesv.Cruikshank(1876).



Untilrecently,thejudiciarytreatedtheSecondAmendmentalmostasadeadletter.InDistrict

of Columbia v. Heller (2008), however, the Supreme Court invalidated a federal law that

forbade nearly all civilians from possessing handguns in the nation’s capital. A 5–4 majority

ruledthatthelanguageandhistoryoftheSecondAmendmentshowedthat

itprotectsaprivate

rightof individualstohave armsfor theirowndefense,nota rightofthe statestomaintain  a

militia.



The dissenters disagreed. They concluded that the Second Amendment protects a nominally

individual right, though onethat protects only “theright of the people of each of the several

States to maintain a well‐regulated militia.” They also argued that even if the Second

Amendment did protect an individual right to

 have arms for self‐defense, it should be

interpretedtoallowthegovernmenttobanhandgunsinhigh‐crimeurbanareas.



Twoyearslater,inMcDonaldv.CityofChicago(2010),theCourtstruckdownasimilarhandgun

banatthestatelevel,againbya5–4vote.FourJusticesreliedonjudicialprecedentsunderthe

Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Justice Thomas rejected those precedents in

favor of reliance on the Privileges or Immunities Clause, but all five members of the majority

concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state infringement the same

individualrightthatisprotectedfromfederal

infringementbytheSecondAmendment.



Notwithstandingthelengthy opinionsinHellerandMcDonald,they technicallyruled onlythat

government may not ban the possession of handguns by civilians in their homes. Heller

tentatively suggested a list of “presumptively lawful” regulations, including bans on the

possession of firearms by felons and

 the  mentally ill, bans on carrying firearms in “sensitive

places”suchasschoolsandgovernmentbuildings,lawsrestrictingthecommercialsaleofarms,

bansontheconcealedcarryoffirearms,andbansonweapons“nottypicallypossessedbylaw‐

abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Many  issues remain open, and the

lower courts have

disagreed with one another about some of them, including important  questions involving

restrictionsoncarryingweaponsinpublic.



________________________



NelsonLundisUniversityProfessoratGeorgeMasonUniversitySchoolofLaw



AdamWinklerisProfessorofLawatUCLASchoolofLaw

NotaSecondClassRight:TheSecondAmendmentToday



ByNelsonLund

Therighttokeepandbeararmsisalotliketherighttofreedomofspeech.Ineachcase,the

Constitutionexpresslyprotectsalibertythatneedstobeinsulatedfromtheordinarypolitical

process.Neitherright,however,isabsolute.TheFirstAmendment,forexample,hasnever

protectedperjury,fraud,orcountlessothercrimesthatarecommittedthroughtheuseof

speech.Similarly,noreasonablepersoncouldbelievethatviolentcriminalsshouldhave

unrestrictedaccesstoguns,orthatanyindividualshouldpossessanuclearweapon.



Inevitably,courtsmustdrawlines,allowinggovernmenttocarryoutitsdutytopreservean

orderlysociety,withoutundulyinfringingthelegitimateinterestsofindividualsinexpressing

theirthoughtsandprotectingthemselvesfromcriminalviolence.Thisisnotaprecisescienceor

onethatwilleverbefreefromcontroversy.



Onejudicialapproach,however,shouldbeunequivocallyrejected.Duringthenineteenth

century,courtsroutinelyrefusedtoinvalidaterestrictionsonfreespeechthatstruckthejudges

asreasonable.Thismeantthatspeechgotvirtuallynojudicialprotection.Government

suppressionofspeechcanusuallybethoughttoservesomereasonablepurpose,suchas

reducingsocialdiscordorpromotinghealthymorals.Similarly,mostguncontrollawscanbe

viewedaseffortstosavelivesandpreventcrime,whichareperfectlyreasonablegoals.Ifthat’s

enoughtojustifyinfringementsonindividualliberty,neitherconstitutionalguaranteemeans

muchofanything.



Duringthetwentiethcentury,theSupremeCourtfinallystartedtakingtheFirstAmendment

seriously.Today,individualfreedomisgenerallyprotectedunlessthegovernmentcanmakea

strongcasethatithasarealneedtosuppressspeechorexpressiveconduct,andthatits

regulationsaretailoredtothatneed.Thelegaldoctrineshavebecomequitecomplex,and

thereisroomfordisagreementaboutmanyoftheCourt’sspecificdecisions.

Takenasawhole,

however,thisbodyofcaselawshowswhattheCourtcandowhenitappreciatesthevalueof

anindividualrightenshrinedintheConstitution.



TheSecondAmendmentalsoraisesissuesaboutwhichreasonablepeoplecandisagree.Butif

theSupremeCourttakesthisprovisionoftheConstitutionasseriouslyasitnowtakestheFirst

Amendment,whichitshoulddo,therewillbesomeeasyissuesaswell.



•DistrictofColumbiav.Heller(2008)isoneexample.The“rightofthepeople”protected

bytheSecondAmendmentisanindividualright,justlikethe“right[s]ofthepeople”protected

bytheFirstandFourthAmendments.TheConstitutiondoesnotsaythattheSecond

Amendmentprotectsarightof

thestatesorarightofthemilitia,andnobodyofferedsuchan

interpretationduringtheFoundingera.AbundanthistoricalevidenceindicatesthattheSecond

Amendmentwasmeanttoleavecitizenswiththeabilitytodefendthemselvesagainstunlawful

violence.Suchthreatsmightcomefromusurpersofgovernmentalpower,but

theymightalso

comefromcriminalswhomthegovernmentisunwillingorunabletocontrol.



•McDonaldv.CityofChicago(2010)wasalsoaneasycaseundertheCourt’sprecedents.

MostotherprovisionsoftheBillofRightshadalreadybeenappliedtothestatesbecausethey

are“deeplyrootedinthisNation’shistoryandtradition.”Therighttokeepandbeararms

clearlymeetsthistest.



•ThetextoftheConstitutionexpresslyguaranteestherighttobeararms,notjustthe

righttokeepthem.Thecourtsshouldinvalidateregulationsthatpreventlaw‐abidingcitizens

fromcarryingweapons

inpublic,wherethevastmajorityofviolentcrimesoccur.First

Amendmentrightsarenotconfinedtothehome,andneitherarethoseprotectedbythe

SecondAmendment.



•Norshouldthegovernmentbeallowedtocreateburdensomebureaucraticobstacles

designedtofrustratetheexerciseofSecondAmendmentrights.Thecourts

arevigilantin

preventinggovernmentfromevadingtheFirstAmendmentthroughregulationsthatindirectly

abridgefreespeechrightsbymakingthemdifficulttoexercise.Courtsshouldexercisethesame

vigilanceinprotectingSecondAmendmentrights.



•Someotherregulationsthatmayappearinnocuousshouldbestruckdownbecausethey

arelittlemorethanpoliticalstunts.Popularbansonso‐called“assaultrifles,”forexample,

definethisclassofgunsintermsofcosmeticfeatures,leavingfunctionallyidenticalsemi‐

automaticriflestocirculatefreely.Thisisunconstitutionalforthesamereasonthatitwould

violatetheFirstAmendmenttobanwords

thathaveaFrenchetymology,ortorequirethat

Frenchfriesbecalled“freedomfries.”



InmostAmericanstates,includingmanywithlargeurbanpopulationcenters,responsible

adultshaveeasyaccesstoordinaryfirearms,andtheyarepermittedtocarrytheminpublic.

Experiencehasshownthatthesepoliciesdonotleadtoincreasedlevelsofviolence.Criminals

paynomoreattentiontoguncontrolregulationsthantheydotolawsagainstmurder,rape,

androbbery.Armedcitizens,however,preventcountlesscrimesandhavesavedmanylives.

What’smore,themostvulnerablepeople—includingwomen,theelderly,andthosewholivein



highcrimeneighborhoods—areamongthegreatestbeneficiariesoftheSecondAmendment.If

thecourtsrequiretheremainingjurisdictionstostopinfringingontheconstitutionalrightto

keepandbeararms,theircitizenswillbemorefreeandprobablysaferaswell.

TheReasonableRighttoBearArms



ByAdamWinkler

GuncontrolisasmuchapartoftheSecondAmendmentastherighttokeepandbeararms.

Thetextoftheamendment,whichreferstoa“wellregulatedMilitia,”suggestsasmuch.Asthe

SupremeCourtcorrectlynotedinDistrictofColumbiav.Heller(2008),themilitiaofthe

foundingerawasthebodyofordinarycitizenscapableoftakinguparmstodefendthenation.

WhiletheFounderssoughttoprotectthecitizenryfrombeingdisarmedentirely,theydidnot

wishtopreventgovernmentfromadoptingreasonableregulationsofgunsandgunowners.



AlthoughAmericanstodayoftenthinkthatguncontrolisamoderninvention,theFoundingera

hadlawsregulatingthearmedcitizenry.Therewerelawsdesignedtoensureaneffective

militia,suchaslawsrequiringarmedcitizenstoappearatmandatorymusterswheretheirguns

wouldbeinspected.Governmentsalsocompiledregistriesofcivilian‐ownedgunsappropriate

formilitiaservice,sometimesconductingdoor‐to‐doorsurveys.TheFoundershadbroadbans

ongunpossessionbypeopledeemeduntrustworthy,includingslavesandloyalists.The

Foundersevenhadlawsrequiringpeopletohavegunsappropriateformilitiaservice.



ThewiderangeofFounding‐eralawssuggeststhattheFoundersunderstoodgunrightsquite

differentlyfrommanypeopletoday.Therighttokeepandbeararmswasnotalibertarian

licenseforanyonetohaveanykindofordinaryfirearm,anywheretheywanted.Nordidthe

SecondAmendmentprotectarighttorevoltagainstatyrannicalgovernment.TheSecond

Amendmentwasaboutensuringpublicsafety,andnothinginitslanguagewasthoughtto

preventwhatwouldbeseentodayasquiteburdensomeformsofregulation.



TheFounding‐eralawsindicatewhytheFirstAmendmentisnotagoodanalogytotheSecond.

Whiletherehavealwaysbeenlawsrestrictingperjury

andfraudbythespokenword,such

speechwasnotthoughttobepartofthefreedomofspeech.TheSecondAmendment,by

contrast,unambiguouslyrecognizesthatthearmedcitizenrymustberegulated—andregulated

“well.”ThislanguagemostcloselyalignswiththeFourthAmendment,whichprotectsarightto

privacybut

alsorecognizestheauthorityofthegovernmenttoconductreasonablesearches

andseizures.



TheprinciplethatreasonableregulationsareconsistentwiththeSecondAmendmenthasbeen

affirmedthroughoutAmericanhistory.Eversincethefirstcaseschallengingguncontrolsfor

violatingtheSecondAmendmentorsimilarprovisionsinstateconstitutions,courtshave

repeatedlyheldthat“reasonable”gunlaws—thosethatdon’tcompletelydenyaccesstoguns

bylaw‐abidingpeople—areconstitutionallypermissible.For150years,thiswasthesettledlaw

oftheland—untilHeller.



Heller,however,rejectedtheprincipleofreasonablenessonlyinname,notinpractice.The

decisioninsistedthatmanytypesofguncontrollawsarepresumptivelylawful,includingbans

onpossessionoffirearmsbyfelonsandthementallyill,bansonconcealedcarry,banson

dangerousandunusualweapons,restrictionsongunsinsensitiveplaceslikeschoolsand

governmentbuildings,andcommercialsalerestrictions.Nearlyallguncontrollawstodayfit

withintheseexceptions.Importantly,theseexceptionsformodern‐daygunlawsunheardofin

theFoundingeraalsoshowthatlawmakersarenotlimitedtothetypesofguncontrolinplace

atthetimeoftheSecondAmendment’sratification.



IntheyearssinceHeller,thefederalcourtshaveupheldtheoverwhelmingmajorityofgun

controllawschallengedundertheSecondAmendment.Bansonassaultweaponshavebeen

consistentlyupheld,ashaverestrictionsongunmagazinesthatholdmorethanaminimum

numberofroundsofammunition.Bansongunsinnationalparks,postoffices,bars,andcollege

campusesalsosurvived.Thesedecisionsmakeclearthatlawmakershavewideleewayto

restrictgunstopromotepublicsafetysolongasthebasicrightoflaw‐abidingpeopletohavea

gunforself‐defenseispreserved.



PerhapsthebiggestopenquestionafterHelleriswhethertheSecondAmendmentprotectsa

righttocarrygunsinpublic.Whileeverystateallowspubliccarry,somestatesrestrictthatright

topeoplewhocanshowaspecialreasontohaveagunonthestreet.Totheextenttheselaws

givelocallawenforcementunfettereddiscretionoverwhocancarry,theyareproblematic.At

thesametime,however,manyconstitutionalrightsarefarmorelimitedinpublicthaninthe

home.Paradescanberequiredtohaveapermit,thepolicehavebroaderpowerstosearch

pedestriansandmotoriststhanprivatehomes,andsexualintimacyinpublicplacescanbe

completelyprohibited.



TheSupreme

Courtmayyetdecidethatmorestringentlimitsonguncontrolarerequiredunder

theSecondAmendment.Suchadecision,however,wouldbecontrarytothetext,history,and

traditionoftherighttokeepandbeararms.