Three Junes That Changed the Second Amendment

For nearly seventy years after United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court said little about the Second Amendment. Lower courts debated whether it protected an individual right or only a right connected to militia service. That debate ended in June 2008.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, and that it includes the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. The Court struck down the District's ban on handgun possession in the home and its requirement that firearms at home be kept inoperable.

Heller also stated that the right is not unlimited. The opinion described certain longstanding regulations — such as prohibitions on possession by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding carrying firearms in sensitive places, and conditions on commercial sales — as presumptively lawful, and it noted the historical tradition of prohibiting dangerous and unusual weapons.

Because Heller arose in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave, it left open whether the right applied against state and local governments. In June 2010, McDonald v. City of Chicago answered that question: the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

For the next decade, many lower courts evaluated gun laws using a two-step approach that often included balancing a law's burdens against the government's interests. In June 2022, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen rejected that approach. The Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense and struck down New York's requirement that applicants show "proper cause" for a carry license.

Bruen set out a text-and-history test: when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the government must justify its regulation by showing it is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Courts across the country have since been applying that test to a wide range of laws.

In June 2024, United States v. Rahimi clarified the test. The Court upheld a federal law disarming individuals subject to certain domestic-violence restraining orders that include a finding of a credible threat, explaining that a modern law need not have a historical twin — it must be consistent with the principles that underpin the nation's regulatory tradition.

Together, these cases form the framework every Second Amendment challenge now follows. They do not answer every question, and litigation continues on many issues. None of this is legal advice: how the law applies to you depends on your state and situation, so consult a licensed attorney or official sources.