U.S. Constitution · Amendment II · ratified 1791-12-15

Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Create a free account or sign in to follow Amendment II and get alerts.

Alerts when a new grade, SI Solution or Think Tank idea cites Amend. II.

The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which the Supreme Court has interpreted as an individual right for self-defense, while allowing for some regulation consistent with historical tradition.

Live in the VFA record

Cited in 177 grades and 1 SI Think Tank idea this month.

402 public items cite this provision · 178 in October 2026 (last month: 12)

Week of 2026-08-03: 1Week of 2026-08-10: 0Week of 2026-08-17: 0Week of 2026-08-24: 0Week of 2026-08-31: 2Week of 2026-09-07: 0Week of 2026-09-14: 7Week of 2026-09-21: 1Week of 2026-09-28: 2Week of 2026-10-05: 154Week of 2026-10-12: 23Week of 2026-10-19: 1

Citations per week, last 12 weeks

The text

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.

National Archives transcription (public domain; original spelling and capitalization). archives.gov

SI explainer

What it means

The Second Amendment 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." This means that because a well-regulated militia is needed for a free state's security, the people's right to keep and bear arms cannot be violated. For most of American history, the Supreme Court held that this right only limited the federal government, not the states. In 1876, the Court in United States v. Cruikshank ruled that the Second Amendment restrained only the federal government. That view was later superseded: in 2010, the Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago held that the Second Amendment right is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The right is not unlimited. In 2008, the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller struck down a handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, unconnected with militia service. In 2022, the Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen held that firearm regulations must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. In 2024, the Court in United States v. Rahimi upheld a federal law disarming individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders with a credible threat finding, applying Bruen by asking whether the law fits principles underlying the historical tradition rather than requiring a "historical twin." In 2026, the Court in Wolford v. Lopez struck down a Hawaii law prohibiting concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the owner's express authorization, because the State's historical analogues did not support it.

Original meaning

The Founding generation wrote the Second Amendment against the backdrop of concerns about standing armies and the role of citizen militias. Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist No. 29 that a large body of citizens "little, if at all, inferior" to a standing army in discipline and use of arms would stand ready to defend their rights. James Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 46 that "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation" and the existence of state-appointed militia officers formed a barrier against federal ambition. During the House debate on the amendments in 1789, Elbridge Gerry expressed concern that the government might use its power to declare who is religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms, asking: "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." These sources show that the militia was seen as a check on standing armies, but the text itself is ambiguous about whether the right is individual or tied to militia service. The Supreme Court in Heller concluded that the right is individual, but dissenting justices read the right as tied to militia service.
  • “This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.” Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 29 (1788-01-10)
  • “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” James Madison, The Federalist No. 46 (1788-01-29)
  • “This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.” House of Representatives, House of Representatives, Debate on Amendments, August 17, 1789 (Annals of Congress) (1789-08-17)

How the Supreme Court has read it

  1. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

    The Court held that the Second Amendment, like the First, operates only as a limitation on the federal government, not on the states, and that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply it to private conduct. This holding was later superseded by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), which incorporated the Second Amendment against the states.

  2. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

    The Court upheld a federal law requiring registration of short-barreled shotguns, reasoning that the Second Amendment protects only weapons with a reasonable relationship to a well-regulated militia, and that the evidence did not show such a relationship for that weapon.

  3. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

    The Court struck down a handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, unconnected with militia service. The majority relied on original public meaning and history, while dissents argued for a militia-based reading or an interest-balancing approach.

  4. McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)

    The Court held that the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The plurality used the Due Process Clause based on history and tradition, while Justice Thomas concurred on Privileges or Immunities grounds, and dissents questioned the historical case and emphasized legislative roles.

  5. New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)

    The Court struck down New York's 'proper cause' requirement for carrying a handgun in public, holding that firearm regulations must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The majority rejected means-end scrutiny, while the dissent would have retained it and emphasized data on gun violence.

  6. United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024)

    The Court upheld a federal law disarming individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders with a credible threat finding. The majority applied Bruen by asking whether the law fits principles underlying the historical tradition, not requiring a 'historical twin.' Justice Thomas dissented, finding no adequate historical analogue.

  7. Wolford v. Lopez, 609 U.S. ___ (2026)

    The Court struck down Hawaii's law prohibiting concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the owner's express authorization, because the State's historical analogues did not support it. The majority applied Bruen's text-and-history framework, with concurrences and dissents on the role of history.

Two schools of interpretation

Originalist / textualist reading

Originalists and textualists read the Second Amendment according to its original public meaning, focusing on the text's structure. They emphasize the prefatory clause about a well-regulated militia as explaining the purpose but not limiting the operative clause, which declares a right of 'the people' to keep and bear arms. They argue that 'the people' refers to all citizens, not just militia members, and that 'bear arms' includes carrying weapons for self-defense. Originalists point to historical evidence from the founding era, such as the Federalist Papers and the debate in the House of Representatives, to show that the right was understood as individual. They also stress that the right is not unlimited, as historical regulations on dangerous weapons and certain persons were accepted. The strongest originalist case, as articulated in Heller, is that the Second Amendment codified a pre-existing right of individuals to possess firearms for self-defense, and that modern regulations must be judged against that historical understanding.

Living-constitutionalist reading

Living constitutionalists and pragmatists read the Second Amendment as a dynamic provision that must adapt to modern circumstances. They argue that the text's preamble about a well-regulated militia suggests a collective purpose, and that the right should be understood in light of contemporary public safety needs. They emphasize that the Court's historical analysis in Bruen is too rigid and ignores the realities of modern gun violence. They would allow legislatures to enact reasonable regulations based on an interest-balancing approach, as Justice Breyer's dissent in Heller and Bruen advocated. The strongest living-constitution case, as articulated in those dissents, is that the Second Amendment should be interpreted to allow democratic majorities to address the harms of gun violence, and that the historical tradition test is unworkable and inconsistent with the Constitution's evolution through amendments and societal change.

Open questions

The scope of the right beyond handguns in the home, such as regulations on assault weapons and magazine capacity, remains unsettled. The precise methodology for applying Bruen's history-and-tradition test is also debated, as seen in Rahimi and Wolford. Additionally, the standard of review for Second Amendment challenges is not fully defined.

SI-generated explainer · passed automated checks (Constitution citation, every quotation verified word for word against its public-domain source, every case from a verified case record, independent SI critic) · not individually reviewed by a person · published 2026-10-15 · methodology · Report an error: hello@valuesforamerica.com

Cited in the VFA record

“Where this provision is cited”

grades (177)

Showing the 25 most recent. All 177: JSON.

roll-call votes (221)

Showing the 25 most recent. All 221: JSON.

Roll-call votes are listed when the measure voted on has a current Constitution Index grade citing this provision. Counts include only published items.

Cite this page

Values for America Constitution Explorer, https://www.valuesforamerica.com/constitution (text: National Archives transcription, public domain), Amendment II, https://www.valuesforamerica.com/constitution/amendment-2

Data: this provision as JSON.