Over the past twenty years, the interpretation of the Second Amendment—which guarantees American citizens the right to bear arms—has been shaped by many significant cases. What is clear through all of them is the strong acknowledgment of the citizen’s right to bear arms as an individual right. Right-to-carry laws, whether enacted by state or federal agencies, have had to respect the importance of this individual right.
When the right to bear arms was established in 1791, there was a strong need for America to quickly form militias to supplement the army and defend the republic. This was the initial motivation for the amendment. However, the Founding Fathers also understood that an armed citizenry could act as a safeguard against tyranny. As Thomas Jefferson told William Stephens Smith: “What country can preserve its liberties if the rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
This column will examine four landmark rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) that have pushed back against laws—either arbitrary or claimed to be in the interest of public safety—that infringe on the Second Amendment. It will also explore the questions raised by two upcoming cases before SCOTUS.
The first ruling, by the Supreme Court in June 2008, was in District of Columbia v. Heller, and it involved owning a gun that could be used if self-defense was needed. Dick Heller, a special police officer, lived in a high-crime neighborhood. However, he couldn’t keep a ready-to-fire gun at home because one of the provisions of the D.C. Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 required licensed firearms to be kept “unloaded, disassembled, or locked away” at home. Interpreting the Second Amendment for the first time in nearly 70 years, the court ruled in Heller’s favor, establishing that gun rights, while not unlimited, are rooted in individual — not collective — rights. It confirmed an individual’s right to own a firearm for self-defense within the home.
The second ruling, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, came from the Supreme Court in 2010 and was, in a sense, a follow-up to Heller. Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old retired maintenance engineer, lived in Morgan Park, a neighborhood that had been taken over by gangs and drug dealers. His house had been broken into a few times, and he was once threatened by thugs while he was out walking. He owned licensed shotguns but found them too cumbersome to use against burglars or criminals, so he wanted to buy a handgun. However, Chicago gun laws, besides restricting gun ownership, prohibited handguns altogether.
When he filed a lawsuit, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of the city council. However, upon hearing his appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the privileges clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to bear arms from infringement by laws enacted by any level of government. As a result, the city was required to change its gun laws, and the Second Amendment gained broad protection against arbitrary government decisions at all levels.
The third ruling, in one of the most important gun law cases ever, was in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen, and related to the Sullivan Act (1911), which requires applicants for concealed carry licenses to prove a specific need, such as a particular threat or extraordinary danger, in order to keep their weapon concealed. Two NYSRPA members had applied for unrestricted carry licenses but were denied. They sued Kevin Bruen, the superintendent of the New York State Police, claiming violations of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, it ruled in June 2022 that the requirement for a “proper cause” was unconstitutional: anyone seeking a permit to carry a concealed weapon is entitled to one if they meet certain legal criteria and should not be required to prove a special need. The SCOTUS affirmed that there is a right to carry guns outside one’s home, and that a state cannot create regulations that selectively restrict who can carry based on discretionary criteria.
The court also required that lower courts base their decisions on the historical context of the Second Amendment and what was considered constitutional at the time America was founded. Federal courts have referenced the Bruen decision, which heavily relies on textual and historical criteria, when ruling on nearly 3,000 Second Amendment cases, and it marked the beginning of a significant expansion of Second Amendment rights.
The fourth SCOTUS ruling, in June 2024, invalidated a federal ban on bump stocks—spring-loaded attachments that enable a semi-automatic rifle to mimic automatic fire to some extent. The issue was that the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, and Explosives (ATF) suddenly classified bump stocks as machine guns, effectively banning them since possessing machine guns is illegal.
The change was made in response to a 2017 shooting in Las Vegas, where a man used semi-automatic rifles with bump stocks to rapidly fire hundreds of rounds into a crowd at a music festival. Firearm owners were required to destroy their bump stocks or surrender them to the bureau. Michael Cargill, a veteran and gun rights activist, surrendered his bump stocks but sued Attorney General Merrick Garland, challenging the bureau’s authority to create such a rule.
The Supreme Court ruled that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority; not only that, the ATF repudiated its own “previous guidance that bump stocks did not qualify as machineguns.” After a detailed examination of how bump stocks work and pointing out inconsistencies in the ATF’s own definitions and claims, the court declared the federal ban invalid.
Now, regarding the upcoming cases, the first is United States v. Hemani, which asks: Does the federal law that bans possession of firearms by someone who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” violate the Second Amendment? During a search of Ali Danial Hemani’s house in Carrollton, Texas, FBI agents found a Glock pistol, 60 grams of marijuana, and 4.7 grams of cocaine. One of the charges against him was possession of a firearm as an unlawful user of a controlled substance, even though he was neither intoxicated nor using drugs at the time.
Hemani has requested the Supreme Court to dismiss the charge, while the Department of Justice has filed for a writ of certiorari, asking the court to clarify the circumstances under which the government can impose restrictions on unlawful users of controlled substances. To clarify, this case tests the very limits of the Second Amendment. Hearings are ongoing, and a decision might be expected in June or July.
In the second case, Wolford v. Lopez, three Maui residents and the Hawaii Firearm Coalition, a gun rights group, are challenging Hawaii’s Attorney General over the state’s Act 52, which bans firearms on private property without the owner’s permission. Wolford was heard by the Supreme Court in January 2026.
The ruling could establish a precedent on a key issue: Can property owners — such as businesses or homeowners – decide whether someone can carry firearms on their property? In America, the right to property is considered as vital as the Second Amendment, so developments in this case are being closely watched. A decision is expected soon.
The Founders guaranteed citizens the right to bear arms because it is rooted in the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to tyranny. It cannot be taken away. As Samuel Adams asserted: “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
