Firearm case law in the United States is based on decisions of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Each of these decisions deals with the Second Amendment (which is a part of the Bill of Rights), the right to keep and bear arms, the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, and/or other federal firearms laws.
United States Supreme Court cases The Supreme Court has occasionally interpreted the Second Amendment and has also mentioned the Second Amendment when ruling on other legal matters.
Interpreting the Second Amendment
United States v. Cruikshank, - post Civil War era case relating to the Ku Klux Klan depriving freed slaves basic rights such as freedom of assembly and the right to bear arms. The court ruled the application of the First and Second Amendments "was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens" and "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government," respectively. In summary, it ruled the federal government could not file charges against citizens in federal court regarding violations of other citizens' constitutional rights. It was up to the states to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens when their rights were abridged by other citizens.
The Court also noted that the Second Amendment only restrained the government from regulating gun ownership, not other private citizens:
Presser v. Illinois, - This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals related to belonging to a militia, for the good of the United States. The Court stated that there is a limit upon state restriction of firearms ownership in that they may not disarm the people to such an extent that there is no remaining armed militia force for the general government to call upon: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, - The Court stated in part:
District of Columbia v. Heller, - The Court ruled the Second Amendment to reference an individual right, holding:
McDonald v. City of Chicago, - The Court ruled that the Second Amendment was incorporated against state and local governments, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In the decision, the Court said:
Caetano v. Massachusetts, (per curiam) - The Court ruled that the Second Amendment extends to all forms of bearable arms:
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, - In a 6–3 decision, the majority ruled that New York's law was unconstitutional, and effectively ruled that the possession of pistols in public was a constitutional right under the Second Amendment. State licensing of firearms was not declared an infringement on that right as long as states stay within the much more common "shall-issue" systems, which may only condition licenses upon satisfying objective criteria, such as passing a background check, rather than "may-issue" systems which may be based on arbitrary evaluations of need made by local authorities. The court also created a new standard for assessing the constitutionality of gun laws, requiring that they be consistent with the nations “historical tradition of firearm regulation”. This standard had a significant impact on case law, rendering many existing firearms restrictions unconstitutional and resulting in a large increase in litigation over Second Amendment related issues. United States v. Rahimi, - In an 8–1 decision, the majority ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) could be constitutionally applied in at least some cases. Thus, in the majority's opinion, the Fifth Circuit erred under the "no set of circumstances test" set forth in United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 107 S.Ct. 2095 (1987) when it held the statute to be facially unconstitutional. Justice Thomas was the sole dissenter, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) could never be applied constitutionally because the statute is wholly inconsistent with the history-and-tradition test set forth in Bruen. Notably, Justice Thomas was the one who wrote the Bruen majority opinion.
Mentioning the Second Amendment Dred Scott v. Sandford, - The court ruled Scott did not enjoy the protection of the Bill of Rights because of his racial background. However, in its ruling, it implies all free men do have the right to bear arms by indicating what would happen if he was indeed afforded full protection:
Duncan v. Louisiana, - A Supreme Court case which incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial at the state level as required by the Fourteenth Amendment. In a concurring opinion by Justice Hugo Black, he used a statement by Senator Howard, who introduced the Fourteenth Amendment, to help validate the Court's ruling that the Bill of Rights as a result of the Fourteenth Amendment forces states, and not just the federal government, to protect the same individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights:
Lewis v. United States, - Ruling that the Congress may prohibit felons from possessing firearms:
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez - A case dealing with nonresident aliens and the Fourth Amendment, but led to a discussion of who are "the People" when referred to in the Constitution:
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, (per curiam) - This case regarded a New York City law that forbade the transfer of unloaded and locked firearms from one's residence to anywhere other than one of seven shooting ranges within the city. After the Court agreed to hear the case, New York City and New York State amended their laws which effectively eliminated the restrictions previously in place. In April 2020, the Court determined that the case was moot and sent the case back to lower courts to determine "whether petitioners may still add a claim for damages in this lawsuit with respect to New York City's old rule."
Federal court rulings Cases v. United States (1st Cir. 1942) was the next federal Second Amendment case after Miller. The opinion upheld the conviction concluding that "there is no evidence that the appellant was or ever had been a member of any military organization or that his use of the weapon under the circumstances disclosed was in preparation for a military career." The court established the federal precedent of restricting the Second Amendment to citizens themselves having a connection to militia. It described as "outdated" the Supreme Court's conclusion in Miller that it is the weapons which must have such a connection. United States v. Warin (6th Cir. 1976) brought earlier formulations of the concept to the first explicit mention of a collective Second Amendment right in a federal court opinion, stating "It is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right."
Firearm Owners Protection Act court rulings Farmer v. Higgins (11th Cir. 1990)907 F.2d 1041 - United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruling ATF does not need to register new machine guns for private ownership under the exception of 18 USC 922(o)(A)(1). United States v. Warner (10th Cir. 1993)5 F.3d 1378 - United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruling regarding Mr. Warner, who was caught in Utah with a machine gun and convicted on 922(o), possession of a machine gun. Mr. Warner appealed on the basis the Utah constitution allows its citizens to bear arms, and therefore he is exempt based on 922(o)(2)(A), "under authority of the State." However, the court overruled this, citing the Farmer case saying machine guns were not meant to be in private hands, and although the Utah law gives permission to own automatic firearms, it did not grant him authority. United States v. Rock Island Armory (1991)773 F.Supp. 117 - United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois ruling one cannot be prosecuted for 1934 National Firearms Act violations for machine guns produced after 1986:
Commerce Clause challenges to firearm laws Stevens v. United States, (6th Cir. 1971) - Upheld enforcement of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 under the Commerce Clause for a felon found in possession of a pistol. This case also furthered the collective rights theory of the Second Amendment established in Cases, stating "Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear Arms' applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm." United States v. Lopez, - In the first Supreme Court case, since the New Deal, to set limits on the Congress's power under the Commerce Clause, the Court declared the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 unconstitutional. United States v. Rybar (3d Cir. 1996)U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 - In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled Congress did have the power to regulate possession of homemade machine guns under the Commerce Clause, later reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. The Third Circuit made this decision 2–1, with future Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in dissent. United States v. Kirk (5th Cir. 1997)U.S. v. Kirk, 105 F.3d 997 - Here, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considered whether Congress overstepped the bounds of the Commerce Clause in banning simple possession of a machinegun (18 U.S.C. §922(o)), absent any transfer over state lines. The en banc panel was evenly split 8-8, and so upheld the previousU.S. v. Kirk, 70 F.3d 791 conviction. United States v. Stewart (348 F.3d 1132 (2003) and 451 F.3d 1071 (2006)) - In 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down Stewart's conviction on a charge of possession of an unregistered machinegun (18 U.S.C. §922(o)) on Commerce Clause grounds. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Raich, the Court ordered Stewart remanded to the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of the decision in Raich. The Ninth Circuit then upheld Stewart's conviction, concluding :
State courts
Bliss v. Commonwealth