The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes like self-defense, and that right applies against federal, state, and local governments. It is not unlimited. The Supreme Court has made clear that longstanding regulations on who may own firearms, where they may be carried, and what kinds of weapons fall within the right remain permissible, so long as they fit the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.
What the Amendment Says
The full text reads: “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.” Courts split this into a prefatory clause (the militia language) and an operative clause (the right of the people).1Legal Information Institute. Second Amendment Doctrine and Practice For most of American history, courts avoided deciding whether the operative clause secured a right for individuals or only for people serving in a militia. That question is now settled.
The Individual Right
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home.2Library of Congress. District of Columbia v. Heller The decision struck down a Washington, D.C. law that effectively banned handgun possession and required all other lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked. The Court reasoned that a total ban on the class of weapons most Americans choose for self-defense was unconstitutional, and that requiring firearms to be inoperable defeated the core purpose of the right.3Constitution Annotated. Heller and Individual Right to Firearms
Heller itself emphasized that the right is not unlimited. The opinion listed several categories of regulation it called “presumptively lawful,” including prohibitions on possession by felons and the mentally ill, bans on carrying in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and conditions on commercial firearm sales.4Justia. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Because Heller involved a federal enclave, it did not directly bind the states. Two years later, McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) closed that gap. The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates the Second Amendment against state and local governments, striking down Chicago’s handgun ban.5Justia. McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) Every state, county, and municipal firearms law is now subject to Second Amendment scrutiny.
How Courts Judge Gun Laws Today
For over a decade after Heller, lower courts used a two-step framework that let judges weigh government interests against the burden on the right. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Supreme Court rejected that interest-balancing approach and replaced it with a test grounded in text and history.6Constitution Annotated. Rahimi and Applying the Second Amendment Bruen Standard
The Bruen test has two steps. If the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects it. The government then bears the burden of showing that its regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. Policy arguments and public safety data no longer carry the day on their own; the government must point to a historical analogue.
Some lower courts read Bruen as requiring a nearly identical founding-era match for every modern law. The Supreme Court corrected that reading in United States v. Rahimi (2024), which upheld the federal ban on firearm possession by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that a modern regulation does not need a “dead ringer” or “historical twin.” It must be “relevantly similar” to laws the American tradition is understood to permit.7Supreme Court of the United States. United States v. Rahimi (2024) The Court pointed to two historical regimes supporting the challenged law: surety laws, which let magistrates require bonds from individuals suspected of future dangerous behavior, and “going armed” laws, which prohibited carrying weapons in ways that terrorized the public. Both targeted people posing credible threats, and so does the modern statute.
Which Weapons Are Protected
The Second Amendment does not cover every weapon. Under Heller, the right extends to arms “in common use” for lawful purposes like self-defense.4Justia. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Firearms owned by millions of law-abiding citizens for protection, including standard handguns and common semi-automatic rifles, receive strong protection. Weapons that are “dangerous and unusual” fall outside the right, a distinction the Court traced to English common law and early American statutes against carrying weapons designed to terrify rather than defend.
Weapons regulated under the National Firearms Act sit in a different category. The NFA, originally enacted in 1934, requires registration and a $200 federal tax stamp for machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, suppressors, and destructive devices.8Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. National Firearms Act Courts have generally treated these items as receiving less protection than ordinary handguns and rifles.
Who Cannot Own Firearms
Federal law bars several categories of people from possessing firearms or ammunition. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), the prohibited categories are:
- Anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison
- Fugitives from justice
- Unlawful users of or those addicted to controlled substances
- People formally adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution
- Noncitizens unlawfully in the country or admitted under most nonimmigrant visas
- Anyone discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions
- Former U.S. citizens who have renounced their citizenship
- Individuals subject to qualifying domestic violence protective orders that include a finding of credible threat or explicitly prohibit force against an intimate partner or child
- Anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
The penalties are serious. Under 18 U.S.C. § 924, the base punishment for illegal possession by a prohibited person reaches up to 15 years in prison. The armed career criminal provision imposes a mandatory minimum of 15 years for individuals with three or more prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses.10Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 924 – Penalties Rahimi confirmed that at least the domestic violence restraining order provision in § 922(g)(8) is constitutional.
Background Checks and Age Limits
Every firearm purchase from a licensed dealer triggers a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, run by the FBI. The buyer fills out ATF Form 4473, the dealer submits the information, and the FBI searches the National Crime Information Center, the Interstate Identification Index, and the NICS Indices. If the check cannot be completed within three business days, the dealer may legally proceed with the sale, though state law can impose stricter waiting periods.11Federal Bureau of Investigation. About NICS
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022 added an enhanced review for buyers under 21. For these purchasers, the system searches juvenile records and allows up to ten business days for the check when initial results flag a potentially disqualifying record.12Congress.gov. Text – Bipartisan Safer Communities Act Federal age floors differ by firearm type: licensed dealers cannot sell handguns to anyone under 21, while long guns can be sold to buyers who are at least 18. Private sales between individuals are not subject to federal background check requirements in most states, though a growing number of states have closed that gap through their own laws.
Where You Can’t Carry
Even as Bruen expanded concealed-carry rights by striking down New York’s discretionary licensing scheme, the Court recognized that firearms can be prohibited in certain “sensitive places.” Heller and Bruen both pointed to schools and government buildings as examples with clear historical support.13Constitution Annotated. Bruen and Concealed-Carry Licenses The majority rejected the idea that the sensitive-places doctrine could swallow the right by applying to every place people congregate.
Federal law reinforces some of these restrictions. The Gun-Free School Zones Act makes it unlawful to knowingly possess a firearm in a school zone, with exceptions for firearms kept on private property outside school grounds, possession by state-licensed individuals, unloaded firearms in locked containers, and authorized school programs.9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 922 Unlawful Acts Courthouses, legislative chambers, and certain federal buildings have long restricted firearms. Post-Bruen litigation is sorting out which additional locations, like hospitals, parks, or public transit, qualify as historically supported sensitive places.
The carry landscape has shifted. A majority of states now allow some form of permitless concealed carry, sometimes called constitutional carry, letting law-abiding adults carry a concealed handgun without a government-issued permit. States that still require permits must, after Bruen, issue them on a “shall-issue” basis to applicants who meet objective criteria. Discretionary systems that let officials deny permits based on subjective judgments about need or character are unconstitutional.
Red Flag Laws
More than 20 states and the District of Columbia have enacted extreme risk protection order laws, commonly known as red flag laws. These statutes allow a court to temporarily remove firearms from a person found to pose a significant risk of harm to themselves or others. Most follow a two-stage structure: an emergency short-term order based on initial evidence, then a full hearing where the respondent can challenge the evidence and argue against a longer-term order. Final orders typically last up to one year and require a new hearing to renew.
There is no federal red flag law. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act made grant funding available for crisis intervention programs, including extreme risk protection orders, without requiring states to adopt them. States that use federal funds for red flag programs must meet due process requirements that include the right to an in-person hearing, an unbiased adjudicator, the right to present and confront evidence, the right to counsel, heightened evidentiary standards, and penalties for abuse of the program.12Congress.gov. Text – Bipartisan Safer Communities Act
Getting Firearm Rights Back
Federal law provides a mechanism for prohibited persons to seek relief from their firearms disability. Under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c), an individual barred from possessing firearms may apply to the Attorney General for restoration. The applicant must show that their record and reputation indicate they would not endanger public safety and that granting relief would serve the public interest. A denial can be reviewed by a federal district court.14Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 925
For decades, Congress blocked funding for the ATF to process these applications, making the federal pathway effectively dead. That is changing. The Department of Justice published a proposed rule in mid-2025 to begin granting relief to qualifying individuals, and a final rule with an application process is expected sometime in 2026. Many states also have their own procedures for restoring firearm rights after a felony conviction, typically tied to completion of a sentence, a waiting period, and a clean record. State requirements vary widely.