For most of American history, the Supreme Court said very little about the Second Amendment. That changed in 2008. In less than two decades, a handful of decisions built the framework every gun law in the country is now measured against.
Here is what each case held, in plain language.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
The Court ruled 5–4 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, not only a right tied to militia service. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. The Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns in the home and its requirement that lawful firearms be kept disassembled or locked.
The opinion also said the right is not unlimited and listed several “longstanding” restrictions it was not calling into question, such as bans on possession by felons and the mentally ill, and limits on carrying in sensitive places.
McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
Heller involved a federal enclave. McDonald, also decided 5–4, held that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. Chicago’s handgun ban fell, and the individual right recognized in Heller became enforceable against every state and city.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022)
New York required residents to show “proper cause,” a special need for self-defense, to get a license to carry a handgun in public. The Court struck it down 6–3 in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, holding that the Second Amendment protects carrying a handgun outside the home for self-defense.
Bruen also changed how courts decide these cases. Instead of weighing the government’s interest against the burden on the right, courts must ask whether a modern law is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. That text-and-history test is now the starting point for nearly every Second Amendment challenge.
United States v. Rahimi (2024)
Rahimi was the first major test of the Bruen framework at the Supreme Court. Ruling 8–1, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing, the Court upheld the federal law that disarms people subject to certain domestic-violence restraining orders.
The Court clarified that the government does not need a historical “twin” for every modern law. A law can survive if it is consistent with the principles behind the nation’s historical tradition of regulation. Lower courts are still working out what that means in practice.
Two related cases that were not about the Second Amendment
Two recent decisions shaped gun policy by reading federal statutes rather than the Constitution:
- Garland v. Cargill (2024): The Court ruled 6–3 that a bump stock does not turn a semiautomatic rifle into a “machinegun” under federal law, ending ATF’s 2018 rule that reclassified the devices.
- Bondi v. VanDerStok (2025): The Court ruled 7–2 that ATF’s rule covering certain weapon-parts kits and partially complete frames and receivers was not invalid on its face under the Gun Control Act.
What is still open
The Supreme Court has said what the test is. It has not said how the test applies to most of the laws now being challenged: bans on certain rifles and magazines, age limits, permit requirements, and the list of “sensitive places” where carry can be restricted. Those questions are moving through the federal courts now, and the answers will likely differ by circuit until the Supreme Court takes them up.
Fully Loaded Clip will cover those cases as they move, with links to the opinions and dockets.
