Second Amendment: D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago - Updated for 2022

Summary

The video script explores the historical significance of guns in America, from colonial times to modern debates. It discusses the Second Amendment's evolution, initially tied to militia service, to the Supreme Court's recognition of an individual's right to bear arms. The script also covers post-Civil War gun laws, the impact of organized crime on gun regulation, and landmark cases like D.C. vs. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which affirmed the right to carry handguns for self-defense.

Takeaways

• 🔥 Guns have been integral to American identity since colonial times, used for survival and protection.
• 🐾 Early American settlers relied on guns for hunting and feared attacks from wild animals and Native Americans.
• 🏰 The colonial fear of foreign invasion and the need for a constant state of warfare highlighted the importance of guns.
• 🗽 The Second Amendment has been a subject of debate, with its wording leading to widespread misunderstanding.
• 📜 The Supreme Court only established the individual right to own guns under the Second Amendment after over 200 years.
• 🔍 The Second Amendment's origins are in the American Revolution, where militias played a heroic role.
• 👮‍♂️ In the founding era, bearing arms was seen as both a right and a duty, especially due to the absence of police forces.
• 🚫 After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment aimed to extend the Second Amendment rights to freed slaves, countering black codes.
• 🔫 The 1930s saw the first national firearms acts in response to organized crime and the need for federal gun regulation.
• 🏛️ The landmark case D.C. versus Heller in 2008 affirmed the individual's right to own a gun for self-defense in their home.
• 🏙️ The 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruin recognized the right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.

Q & A

What is the main focus of the film discussed in the transcript?

The main focus of the film is the exploration of the role of guns in American life, identity, and the debate surrounding the Second Amendment.

How does the film connect the history of guns in America to the Second Amendment?

The film connects the history of guns in America to the Second Amendment by discussing the role of militias in the American Revolution, the fear of a standing army, and the evolution of gun rights and regulations over time.

What is the significance of the Second Amendment according to the transcript?

The Second Amendment is significant as it is considered a central part of American identity for many and is the subject of much debate. It is also noted for being poorly written and highly misunderstood.

How does the transcript describe the early American colonists' relationship with guns?

The transcript describes early American colonists as having a close relationship with guns, which were essential for survival, hunting, and protection against wild animals and potential attacks from Native Americans or foreign armies.

What was the role of militias in the founding era according to the script?

In the founding era, militias were considered both a right and a duty. They were composed of local citizens organized to protect their communities and were seen as a defense against tyranny and a check against the establishment of a standing army.

How did the Civil War change the perception of gun rights in America as presented in the transcript?

The Civil War led to a shift in perception of gun rights, with an increased focus on individual self-defense and the protection of newly freed slaves. The 14th Amendment was intended to extend the Second Amendment rights to all citizens, including freed slaves.

What was the significance of the Supreme Court case Washington, D.C. versus Heller mentioned in the transcript?

The case of Washington, D.C. versus Heller was significant because it was the first time the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for self-defense within the home.

How did the transcript summarize the outcome of the Heller case?

The Heller case resulted in a 5-4 majority ruling in favor of Richard Heller, affirming that the Second Amendment secures an individual's right to keep and bear arms, and striking down Washington, D.C.'s ban on functional firearms in the home.

What did the Supreme Court decide in the case New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruin as mentioned in the transcript?

In the case New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruin, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a constitutional right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense, striking down a New York law that required a special need for such a license.

How does the transcript suggest the balance between gun rights and regulations?

The transcript suggests that the balance between gun rights and regulations is complex, involving the individual's right to own a gun and the government's need to maintain order and safety, with the Heller decision setting a precedent for individual gun rights while acknowledging the existence of reasonable regulations.

Outlines

00:00

🔥 American Gun Culture Origins

The paragraph discusses the historical significance of guns in America, dating back to colonial times. It highlights how guns were essential for survival, forming part of the American identity. The text also touches on the fear of wild animals and foreign invasions, which contributed to the constant state of warfare during the colonial period. The debate over gun ownership is mentioned, with a focus on the Second Amendment, which is criticized for its poor drafting and the resulting confusion over its interpretation. The paragraph concludes by mentioning the Supreme Court's late recognition of an individual's right to own a gun and the ongoing debate about the Second Amendment's true meaning.

05:02

🏰 Militias and the Second Amendment

This section delves into the role of militias in early America and their connection to the Second Amendment. It explains how militias were composed of local citizens and were crucial for defense against external threats. The paragraph also discusses the framers' intention to prevent the formation of a standing army, which was seen as a threat to liberty. The Constitution's provisions for raising armies and organizing militias are mentioned, emphasizing the temporary nature of these militias. The paragraph also explores the evolution of the Second Amendment's interpretation, from a collective right associated with militias to an individual right for self-defense, especially in the context of post-Civil War reconstruction and the 14th Amendment.

10:08

🚔 Federal Gun Regulation and Crime

The paragraph covers the rise of federal gun regulation in response to organized crime and the increase in violence during the 1930s. It discusses the National Firearms Act of 1934, which required the registration of certain types of weapons, and the Supreme Court case United States versus Miller, which upheld federal gun regulations. The paragraph also touches on the public's desire for gun control and the resistance to such measures, as well as the assassinations of the 1960s that further fueled the gun control debate. The narrative also includes the efforts to pass the Brady Bill, requiring background checks for gun purchases, and the growing debate over the Second Amendment as an individual right.

15:10

🏡 The Heller Decision and Individual Gun Rights

This section focuses on the landmark Supreme Court case District of Columbia versus Heller, which established an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense. It details the circumstances leading to the case, including Washington, D.C.'s strict gun control laws and their ineffectiveness in reducing crime. The paragraph outlines the Supreme Court's majority opinion, which interpreted the Second Amendment as securing an individual's right to bear arms, not limited to service in a militia. The decision's implications for state gun laws and the limits it placed on government regulation of firearms are also discussed.

20:22

🗽 Expanding Gun Rights Beyond the Home

The final paragraph discusses the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruin, which affirmed the right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. It critiques the New York law that required a special need for concealed carry permits, arguing that such a requirement was unconstitutional. The Court's majority opinion is summarized, emphasizing that the right to bear arms is not a second-class right and does not require individuals to demonstrate special needs to exercise it. The paragraph highlights the ongoing debate over gun rights and the balance between individual liberties and societal order.

Keywords

💡Citizenship

Citizenship refers to the status of a person recognized under the law of a sovereign state or local jurisdiction, and being a citizen implies a sense of belonging and responsibility towards the state. In the video, citizenship is portrayed as the highest calling of every person, emphasizing the civic duties and rights that come with being an American, including the right to bear arms.

💡Second Amendment

The Second Amendment is part of the United States Constitution that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is central to the video's theme, as it discusses the historical and contemporary debates surrounding gun ownership in America. The script explores the amendment's wording and its interpretation over time, including Supreme Court cases that have shaped its understanding.

💡Militia

A militia historically refers to a military force composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. In the context of the video, militias are discussed as local groups that played a significant role in the American Revolution and were seen as essential for the security of a free state, as mentioned in the Second Amendment.

💡Self-defense

Self-defense is the act of protecting oneself from harm. The video discusses how the right to bear arms is often justified as a form of self-defense, especially in the context of the Supreme Court case that ruled on the individual's right to own a gun for personal protection within their home.

💡Gun control

Gun control refers to laws or policies that regulate the ownership, distribution, and use of firearms. The video explores the evolution of gun control laws in the United States, from early federal regulations to modern debates, and how these laws intersect with the constitutional right to bear arms.

💡Concealed carry

Concealed carry is the practice of carrying a concealed handgun or other firearm on one's person in public. The video touches on this concept in relation to the Supreme Court case that struck down a New York law requiring a special need to carry a concealed gun outside the home.

💡James Madison

James Madison is one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and the principal author of the U.S. Constitution. His role is highlighted in the video as the author of the Second Amendment, which has been a subject of debate and interpretation regarding gun rights.

💡Revolutionary War

The Revolutionary War, also known as the American Revolution, was a conflict that led to the independence of the United States from Great Britain. The video mentions the war as a foundational event that shaped the American identity and the right to bear arms, as citizens fought with guns to secure freedom.

💡Prohibition

Prohibition in the United States was the nationwide constitutional ban on the production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages. The video references the Prohibition era to illustrate the rise in organized crime and the use of firearms, which contributed to the push for federal gun control laws.

💡National Firearms Act

The National Firearms Act is a United States federal law that regulates firearms. The video discusses this act in the context of the 1930s when the federal government began to regulate guns more strictly, including the registration of certain types of firearms like machine guns.

💡Heller decision

The Heller decision refers to the landmark Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for self-defense. The video explains how this decision was a turning point in recognizing an individual's right to own a gun and influenced subsequent gun laws.

Highlights

Citizenship is considered every person's highest calling in America.

Guns were integral to early American identity and survival.

Settlers relied on guns for food and protection from wild animals and Native Americans.

The fear of foreign armies taking over American territory was a significant concern in the colonial period.

The Second Amendment is a central topic of debate and is often criticized for being poorly written.

The Supreme Court established the individual right to own a gun over 200 years after the Constitution was written.

The Second Amendment's origins are in the American Revolution, where militias played a heroic role.

The militia is romanticized because it was the foundation of the American Revolution.

In the founding era, bearing arms was seen as both a right and a duty.

The Constitution was designed to prevent the establishment of a standing army, which was seen as a threat to liberty.

The Second Amendment was intended to ensure that militias were armed to prevent the accumulation of federal power.

After the Civil War, the focus of gun rights shifted towards individual self-defense.

The 14th Amendment was intended to apply the Bill of Rights to every state, including the right to bear arms.

The Supreme Court initially did not recognize an individual's right to own a gun, despite the 14th Amendment.

The 1930s saw the first national firearms acts and a push for more federal gun regulation.

The case of U.S. versus Miller upheld federal gun restrictions and limited the Second Amendment's interpretation.

The 1960s brought a call for more federal gun laws due to increased violence and assassinations.

The Brady bill, supported by President Reagan, aimed to require background checks before purchasing a gun.

The Washington, D.C. versus Heller case was a landmark decision that ruled in favor of an individual's right to bear arms.

The Supreme Court's decision in Heller left room for certain types of gun regulations.

The McDonald versus Chicago case extended the individual right to bear arms to all states.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that Americans have a constitutional right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.

Transcripts

This film is a project of the Leonore  Annenberg Institute for Civics in partnership  

with the Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands.  Citizenship is every person's highest calling.

Well before the nation was founded, for many,  guns played such a key role in survival, they  

were part of a new American identity. Guns have  been part of American life since the beginning,  

since the settlers came and landed at Plymouth  Rock. The only food you're able to consume  

is the food that you're able to produce  either on the farm or, or through hunting or  

fishing. As a colonist living in America, you have  perhaps a greater fear of wild animals than most  

Americans do. You might also be afraid of Native  Americans attacking. A foreign army coming in  

and taking over American territory was a very  real worry in the colonial period. It's almost a  

constant state of warfare. The nation and the guns  have changed, but many still consider them to be a  

central part of their identity as Americans and  many do not. Today, guns are the topic of a lot  

of debate. "You cannot go out today if you have  a handgun and carry it around." And that debate  

runs right through the Second Amendment. We know  their target. It's the Second Amendment to the  

Constitution, but there's one thing about the  Second Amendment that gets most people to agree.  

It isn't written very well. It's almost as if  James Madison, the author of that provision,  

just discovered this wonderful new thing, the  comma, and wanted to put it in there as many  

times as possible. Your English teacher  will tell you it's not very well drafted.  

It's probably the most misunderstood of  all the amendments, I would say. OK, here's  

what it actually says: 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. And here's the thing,  

it took over 200 years before the Supreme Court  established that the Second Amendment gives an  

individual a right to own a gun. America's  always had guns and we've always had laws to  

regulate them, so why the confusion? You can  make a good argument either way about whether  

people anticipated this simply as a right that  applied to those who could serve in the militia  

or was a kind of individual right. The Second  Amendment grows out of the American Revolution.  

Who are the heroes of the American Revolution?  Well, they're the local militias. Americans  

fought a long, hard, bloody war with guns to get  rid of a king. One of the most famous stories from  

our Revolution is the legend of Paul Revere. OK,  Revere actually rode in secret that night so he  

never really said this, but the story caught  on that he shouted about an oncoming attack.

But Revere and the rebels knew that  the British wanted to stop them from  

fighting so they were really coming to take their weapons.

The very start of the Revolutionary War is  remembered as a shot. The embattled farmer  

who fired the shot heard 'round the world becomes  a part of American folklore down to this day. That  

farmer was part of a militia, a group of citizens  organized by local governments and sent to fight  

for the new nation. The militia is romanticized.  It's romanticized in part because the Revolution  

starts with the militia. Militias have a long history  in America. They are the people themselves, men,  

roused to arms to protect the independence,  the liberty, and the safety of their colony,  

now their state. When trouble comes, the  people in the community are expected to bring  

with them the arms they have and use those  to defend the community and restore order.  

In the founding era, they thought of the right to  bear arms not only as a right but also as a duty  

because they didn't have police forces and  they didn't believe in a standing army.  

A standing army is a threat to liberty. The  standing army was considered a bad thing,  

something that the federal government might  use to establish its tyrannical authority.  

The framers didn't want their new national  government to have a full-time professional  

army. The king had used one of those  to trample their rights. So right here,  

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution gives  Congress the power to raise and support armies,  

puts a two-year limit on money for them, and right  here, Congress has the power to organize and arm  

militias. So instead of one powerful full-time  national army, Congress would organize temporary  

militias led by the states. One of the reasons  that the militia was considered so important and  

so valuable was that state militias that could  actually rise to the task of national defense  

meant that you didn't need a standing army.  We created the defense of the rights of this  

country and the Revolution out of the militias  in the states or the colonies coming together to  

fight against tyranny. The federal government  wouldn't accumulate too much power, but the  

nation would be defended and that's why we have  an amendment to make sure the militias were armed.  

But here's where it gets confusing. We know the  framers wanted Congress to raise an army but not  

to keep one hanging around. We know individuals  already own guns; the framers were telling them  

to bring their guns to the fight. So when  it comes to the Second Amendment, which one  

is more important? A central question was, what  is the meaning of that, because you've got two  

clauses, right? One clause basically suggests  that there's a right to keep and bear arms  

and the other clause, the preamble, essentially  says why there's a right to keep and bear arms. But if  

the Constitution reflected a fear of central power  after the Revolutionary War, after the Civil War,  

things changed. People weren't as worried about a  king; they were worried about bad behavior in the  

states. The Constitution had to be changed to  protect everyone equally, especially the newly  

freed slaves. And now what's in people's minds  is really an individual right of self-defense.  

It's about the state failing to protect you and  you being able to take matters into your own hands  

with the gun in your own hands. After the Civil  War, guns were being used in two very different  

ways in different parts of the country. Groups  of American settlers were taking their guns with  

them to expand the Western frontier. At the  same time, down South during Reconstruction,  

armed men were also forming groups. But they  weren't settlers and they weren't militias.  

They were groups like the Ku Klux Klan, and  Southern states were passing laws leaving  

newly freed blacks helpless to defend themselves.  More and more of the Southern states began to pass  

stricter controls on free black men owning  guns. And so these laws known as the black codes  

severely restricted what African Americans could  do. It required them to live in certain places,  

and among the other things it did is it banned  them from possessing firearms to ensure that they  

would be more compliant and less troublesome.  That is, if you have this disarmed population,  

they're simply easier to push around. When  groups like the Klan go bursting into their  

homes at night that they won't meet an armed  response. Congress led the charge to ratify the  

14th Amendment after the Civil War. The goal was  to apply the Bill of Rights to every state. The  

original Constitution only applied to the federal  government, see, Congress shall make no law...  

The Second Amendment itself directly restricts  only the federal government. The 14th Amendment  

was written to make sure the states respected  everyone's constitutional rights. The Southern  

states were disarming only black citizens.  Through the 14th Amendment, Congress intended  

to give freed slaves their Second Amendment right  to own guns to defend themselves and their homes.  

It's going to be an idea at the absolute center of  the Reconstruction that blacks in particular get  

to have guns in their homes to protect themselves  against Klansmen because you can't count on the  

local police department to show up. That's a  slightly different vision than the founders'  

main vision. The founders' vision was when guns  are outlawed, only the king's men will have guns.  

Now in this new vision, it's when guns are  outlawed, only Klansmen will have guns. The threat  

isn't just the national standing army but private  violence. For the first time, Congress recognized  

an individual's right to own a gun. But the  Supreme Court did not. In three early decisions  

it said the 14th Amendment did not protect blacks  from state efforts to restrict their rights to  

own guns. So from the colonial days well into  the 20th century, two things remain true. Most  

Americans could own guns, and most states, for  good and bad reasons, had laws restricting them.

When violent crime caused the federal government  to ban certain weapons, the individual right to  

own a gun came up in the Supreme Court again. In  the 1930s, when it came to guns in America, two  

big things were going on. One was crime. It was  an era of Prohibition, when we outlawed alcohol.  

It led to huge growth in criminal syndicates,  mafia, other families that were distributing  

alcohol illegally. And often they used the most  high-powered weapons, the newly invented machine  

gun, for instance to enforce their will. Organized  crime made national headlines, and gangsters and  

their guns made Americans feel unsafe. The  other big thing happening was the New Deal  

and a much bigger federal government with more  power to regulate guns. The '30s and the New Deal  

was first time we see the first national firearms  acts that are dealing in a modern gun regulation  

model. There's suddenly a recognition that  the problem about what to do about guns,  

which easily cross state lines, is something  the federal government needs to step in to do.  

Now the 1934 National Firearms Act calls  for the registration of automatic weapons,  

sawed-off shotguns and silencers. The  public wanted laws to keep dangerous  

weapons away from the gangsters. Congress  agreed. United States versus Miller upheld  

a federal law that restricted certain types of  guns like fully automatic weapons or sawed-off  

shotguns. The Court determined that the right  to bear arms only applies to weapons that are  

commonly used for perfectly legal reasons like  hunting. That meant that the federal government  

could regulate machine guns and weapons used  by gangsters. Miller was an ambiguous opinion 

that never really clarified exactly  what was meant by the Second Amendment.  

Many courts in the years after that interpreted  that decision to mean there was no individual  

right to have a gun for personal protection. After  Miller, two things were clear. The Court still  

didn't see the Second Amendment as an individual  right to own a gun. Federal regulations were OK.  

In the 1960s, more violence brought a call  for more federal gun laws. So the '60s is a  

time of incredible turmoil in America. You have  assassinations "at 1:25 the motorcade moves into  

the downtown area." We have the assassination of  President Kennedy, Senator Bobby Kennedy when  

he's running for president. "And there's a doctor  in the house I want to see right here. Everybody  

else please stay back." Of Martin Luther King. All  of this contributes to a greater sense of desire  

for control of firearms. Assassinations and riots  in major American cities led some people to think  

that the best way to stop the violence was to  put a limit on guns. A modern gun control movement  

developed that in many cases is quite frankly  a Prohibition movement. Their ultimate goal  

is severe restrictions by the federal government  on firearms ownership. I think we need to support  

them more than we are. I think that we need a  stronger gun control law, but stronger federal  

gun laws brought stronger resistance to gun  laws. This idea of banning weapons had a kind of  

simple model of, you know, you take the guns away  and the problem will go away and that was met  

on the other side with this kind of great bumper  sticker "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

When President Ronald Reagan was shot by  the mentally ill John Hinckley Jr. in 1981,  

his press secretary, James Brady, was badly  wounded. Brady and his wife Sarah tried to  

get Congress to pass legislation known as the  Brady bill that would require background checks  

before someone could buy a gun. "I support the  Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it."  

President Reagan supported the Brady bill. The  National Rifle Association objected, leading a  

new campaign to recognize an individual's right  to own a gun. "I say that the Second Amendment is  

in order of importance the First Amendment. It  is America's first freedom, the one right that  

protects all the others." For two decades, the debate  over the Second Amendment and an individual's  

right to own a gun grew louder and stronger. Oh my  god when do we want it now do you believe that the  

Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights  and an individual right. That's what we believe.

If I were writing the Bill of Rights now it  wouldn't be any such thing as the Second Amendment.  

It was in a climate like this that the case of  Washington, D.C. versus Heller made it to the Supreme  

Court in 2008. Washington, D.C., made it impossible  for people to ever have an operable functioning  

gun inside their home for self-defense. Alan  Gore argued the case on behalf of Richard Heller. 

Even though Heller was a Washington security  officer licensed to carry a gun at work, Washington,  

D.C. law made it illegal for him or anyone to  have a working gun at home even for self-defense.  

So if somebody broke into your your house and you  had a rifle or a shotgun, then you could perhaps  

whack them over the head with it. You  could throw it at them, but you could never  

actually render that firearm operable and use it  to shoot an intruder. At that point, it would be  

considered a criminal violation in Washington, D.C. Lawmakers decided that if we could get rid of the  

guns, there'd be a lot less crime. It didn't really  work out as as intended. Guns were so easy to get  

across the border in Maryland or Virginia in the  years after the law went into effect, Washington,  

D.C., was racked by crack cocaine and other criminal  activity and became known as the murder capital of  

the United States. D.C. versus Heller was the first  time the Supreme Court was actually asked to  

decide the meaning of the Second Amendment. In its  argument, Washington, D.C., focused on a well-regulated  

militia. The District of Columbia defended the  law on the ground that the Second Amendment was  

limited to the right to keep bear arms for the  purposes of a militia and the D.C. government has  

a sort of collectivist vision of security where  the idea is the state will protect you and in  

order to make you safer, we're going to limit your  ability to own guns and also ideally the limit of  

people who would use force against you. Alan Gore  argued D.C.'s handgun ban was a violation of Richard  

Heller's constitutional right. The Second Amendment  secures the right of the people to keep and bear  

arms, and so we know that the right of the people  means the right not of the militia, not of some  

people, but the right of the general community. And Gore argued one more point in American law: 

The home is a special place. Whatever right you  have always counts for more if you're trying to  

exercise it inside your own home. A 5-4 majority of the court agreed and ruled in favor  

of Richard Heller. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote  the majority opinion. He broke the amendment down  

into two parts. He called the militia clause a  preferatory clause that suggests why the right  

became law but really has no power over the right,  and Justice Scalia called the right of the people  

to keep and bear arms the operative clause. This  he argued is an individual right and the very  

reason we have the amendment. The ownership of the gun did not have to be associated with service in  

the militia, it just had to be useful for personal  self-defense. The majority took the position that,   

no, the Second Amendment does not mean that the  right to keep and bear arms is limited to the  

militia. The D.C. law is struck down, and D.C. must  now write a new law. They cannot make it impossible  

to have a gun available to you throughout your  house in a functional way that's useful for  

self-defense in the event of a criminal attack.  Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a strong dissent.  

He said the right was meant to be limited by the  militia phrase and that it was a dramatic break  

from previous decisions of the Court. But both  sides agreed there are limits on the individual  

right. The Court explained that by ruling for  the individual right, it was not overturning  

all gun laws across the country. Fairly late in  the majority opinion, Justice Scalia reassures  

the public that just because we're saying there is  this Second Amendment right that individuals have  

to keep and bear arms, that doesn't mean that  all gun control laws are now unconstitutional.  

Laws banning convicted felons from having guns  or mentally ill people from having guns laws, that  

limit carrying guns into what he calls sensitive  places like schools or government buildings. No  

right is ever absolute, and Heller left room for  certain types of regulation. Heller was a landmark  

ruling in favor of an individual right to bear  arms, but this ruling only applied to Washington, D.C.,  

which is not a state. So Alan Gore went back to  court the moment that the Supreme Court  

decided the Heller case. I got on the phone and I  had my co-counsel in Chicago file our complaint in  

McDonald versus the City of Chicago. He won that,   too. The Court declared that the Second Amendment  

right to bear arms is a fundamental right that the  states have to protect. And so now the individual  

right that Congress originally wanted in each  state to protect the freed slaves is protected  

across the nation. Individuals have a right to own  a gun in the wake of the Heller decision. Obviously  

we still have gun laws, but we now know that there  are limits on what the government can do in this  

area. American law is an attempt to balance liberty  with order and self-government. We have a right  

collectively as a people to pass laws that are  needed in order for us to function as a society.  

We also as individuals have rights that provide  strong claims against government interference and  

it's not hard to imagine scenarios where  those two bump up against one another.  

This has been the history of guns in America.  We've always had them and we've always had laws  

to regulate them. The Heller decision made it  clear that individuals have a right to own a gun,  

and the question that is left after Heller is what  is a sufficient justification to regulate weapons.

On June 23, 2022, the U.S. Supreme  Court ruled by a six to three vote  

that Americans have a constitutional right to  carry a handgun in public for self-defense. The  

decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol  Association v Bruin struck down a New York  

law that required people to demonstrate a  special need for carrying a concealed gun  

outside their homes in order to get a license. In  the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said  

the Constitution protects an individual's right to  carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.  

It is not a second-class right, he wrote. e know of  no other constitutional right that an individual  

may exercise only after demonstrating to  government officers some special needs.