Supreme Court on the 2A

The latest myth to address is the false statement that District of Columbia vs. Heller is modern revisionist interpretation, and altered existing precedent on the position of the 2nd Amendment being nothing more than a collective right. Truth is, only one of the previous cases ever addressed the 2nd Amendment in this manner, and it affirmed that it was in fact an individual right (Presser v. Illinois, 1886). Heller was the second broad review on this question, which re-affirmed that individual right and established self-defense as one of the intents.

Before we get into actual cases, it's worth noting that early state and federal supreme court justices commented on the 2nd Amendment. St. George Tucker, a Virginia State Supreme Court justice, published the following in his 1803 addition of Blackstone's "Commentaries":

The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally under the specious pretext of preserving the game; a never-failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure. . . . True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy; but their right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words “suitable to their condition or degree” have been interpreted to authorize the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, by any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game.

Joseph Story, a US Supreme Court justice, also recognized the 2nd Amendment as an individual right in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States:

The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Back to cases, United States v. Cruikshank – A case involving the KKK, where minorities were being denied their 2nd Amendment rights (just like rich elitists are trying to deny that right today). It did not address the scope of the 2nd Amendment, but did affirm that the 14th Amendment prevents States from restricting the right to bear arms. The court only overturned the charges against the racists on grounds that suppression of rights needed to be addressed on the State level and not Federal, when suppression is being inflicted by an individual and not by State law.

Presser v. Illinois – This was the first time the 2nd Amendment was questioned as either an individual right or a collective right. The court affirmed the position that it was an individual right. The only established restriction was that citizen military organizations can be restricted from drilling within cities unless authorized.

“We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

…

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect. "

United States v. Miller – A case involving a sawed off shotgun. The court ruled that it was not “ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to common defense.” They went on to state that the intent was for ordinary men to be able to bear arms SUPPLIED BY THEMSELVES for defense, which was used as further justification in the Heller case. Where the court had made an error, was that the defense had not appeared and never explained that sawed off shotguns were in fact used during WW1 – meaning the basis for their decision allowing regulation in this case was incorrect. It’s also important to note that this ruling does not justify banning sawed off shotguns, but only their regulation through a tax stamp.

District of Columbia v. Heller – A case involving a handgun owned for personal protection. Re-affirmed Presser v. Illinois, and addressed the individual right to bear arms includes self-defense.

McDonald v. City of Chicago – Affirms that the 2nd amendment is protected from local laws by the 14th amendment.

Caetano v. Massachusetts – Affirms that rights are protected even for technologies that have advanced.