2nd Amendment Landmark Cases — Heller, McDonald, Bruen Explained

The Full Text of the Second Amendment

"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."

Twenty-seven words. One comma-laden sentence. For over two centuries, these words have been the subject of intense legal debate. Does "the right of the people" refer to an individual right, or a collective right tied to militia service? Does "keep and bear Arms" protect the right to have firearms in the home, carry them in public, or both? What does "shall not be infringed" actually mean?

Three Supreme Court cases answered these questions definitively. Together, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) form the foundation of modern Second Amendment law.

The Bill of Rights: Constitutional Context

Before examining the cases, it is important to understand how the Second Amendment fits within the broader constitutional framework. The Bill of Rights — the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution — was ratified on December 15, 1791. Several amendments are directly relevant to firearms law:

Case 1: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

Background

In 1976, the District of Columbia enacted one of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. The Firearms Control Regulations Act effectively banned the possession of handguns by civilians, required all firearms to be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock," and prohibited carrying an unlicensed firearm — with no license system available to ordinary citizens.

Dick Heller was a special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center. He applied for a license to keep a handgun at home for self-defense. The District denied his application. Heller challenged the law on Second Amendment grounds.

The Question

Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and does it protect the right to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home?

The Holding (5-4)

YES. In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right. The phrase "the right of the people" means the same thing in the Second Amendment as it does in the First and Fourth Amendments — it refers to individual persons, not a collective militia body. The "well regulated Militia" clause announces a purpose but does not limit the operative clause.
2. "Keep and bear Arms" means to possess and carry weapons. "Keep arms" means to have firearms. "Bear arms" means to carry them. While "bear arms" can have a military connotation, the natural reading of the full text protects individual possession and carry, not merely militia-related activity.
3. Self-defense is at the core of the right. The Court declared self-defense "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. The DC handgun ban, which prohibited the most preferred firearm for home self-defense, was unconstitutional.
4. The right is not unlimited. Justice Scalia noted that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

What Heller Did Not Decide

Critically, Heller applied only to the District of Columbia, which is a federal territory. The Court did not address whether the Second Amendment applied to state and local governments. That question came two years later.

Case 2: McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)

Background

The City of Chicago had a handgun ban similar to DC's. After Heller, Otis McDonald — a 76-year-old retired maintenance engineer living in a high-crime neighborhood on the South Side — challenged the ban, arguing that if the Second Amendment prevented the federal government from banning handguns, it should also prevent state and local governments from doing so.

The Question

Does the Second Amendment apply to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment?

Understanding Incorporation

The Bill of Rights originally restricted only the federal government. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." — not "no government shall make a law." After the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. Its Due Process Clause states:

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Through a doctrine called selective incorporation, the Supreme Court has held that this clause "incorporates" most of the Bill of Rights and applies them to state governments. The First Amendment was incorporated in the 1920s–1940s. The Fourth Amendment was incorporated in 1961 (Mapp v. Ohio). The Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause was incorporated in 1964 (Malloy v. Hogan). But until McDonald, the Second Amendment had never been incorporated.

The Holding (5-4)

YES. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller is "fully applicable to the States" through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the plurality opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas concurred but argued that incorporation should be grounded in the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Due Process Clause.

The practical effect was immediate and sweeping: every state and local handgun ban in America was now unconstitutional. Chicago's handgun ban was struck down, and similar restrictions in other cities were voided or abandoned.

The Gap After Heller and McDonald

After these two decisions, lower courts were left with a critical unresolved question: what standard of review should be used to evaluate firearms regulations? The Court in Heller rejected rational basis review (too lenient) but did not specify whether strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny should apply. Most federal circuit courts adopted a two-step framework: first, determine whether the regulated activity falls within the scope of the Second Amendment; second, apply means-end scrutiny (usually intermediate scrutiny). This framework stood for twelve years — until Bruen.

Case 3: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022)

Background

New York's Sullivan Act of 1911 required anyone seeking a license to carry a concealed handgun in public to demonstrate "proper cause" — a specific, documented need for self-defense beyond a general desire to protect oneself. Brandon Koch and Robert Nash applied for unrestricted concealed carry licenses in New York. Both were denied because they could not show "proper cause" beyond general self-defense concerns. They challenged the law with the backing of the NYSRPA.

The Question

Does New York's "proper cause" requirement for obtaining an unrestricted concealed carry license violate the Second Amendment?

The Holding (6-3)

YES. In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. New York's "proper cause" requirement was unconstitutional because it prevented "law-abiding, responsible citizens" from exercising their right to bear arms in public.

But the most consequential aspect of Bruen was not the holding — it was the new legal framework the Court established for evaluating all firearms regulations going forward.

The Text, History, and Tradition Test

The Court rejected the two-step means-end scrutiny framework that lower courts had been using since Heller. In its place, Justice Thomas articulated a new standard:

"When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."

Under this framework:

1. Step 1: Text. Does the regulated conduct fall within the plain text of the Second Amendment? If "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" covers the conduct, it is presumptively protected.
2. Step 2: History and Tradition. If the text covers the conduct, the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate that the regulation is "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." The government must point to a historical analogue — a regulation from the Founding era (1791) or Reconstruction era (1868) that is sufficiently similar in both how and why it burdens the right.

The Court emphasized that the historical analogue need not be a "historical twin" — but it must be more than a "historical cousin." There must be a "well-established and representative" historical analogue.

Impact on California Law

Bruen had an immediate and dramatic impact on California:

CCW Licensing

California's "good cause" requirement under Cal. Penal Code § 26150 and § 26155 was functionally identical to New York's "proper cause." Within weeks of the Bruen decision, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued guidance directing issuing authorities to stop requiring "good cause" statements. The legislature subsequently passed SB 2, which formally removed the "good cause" requirement while adding extensive new restrictions. See our California CCW Guide 2026 for details.

Assault Weapons Ban

In Miller v. Bonta, challenging California's assault weapons ban, Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California ruled that the ban was unconstitutional under Bruen's text-history-tradition framework. The case is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

Magazine Capacity Restrictions

In Duncan v. Bonta, California's ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds has been challenged. Judge Benitez similarly struck down the restriction, and the Ninth Circuit is considering the case en banc.

Handgun Roster

In Boland v. Bonta, the handgun roster's microstamping requirement is being challenged under the Bruen framework. See our Handgun Roster article for details.

SB 2 Sensitive Places

Multiple federal lawsuits (May v. Bonta, Carralero v. Bonta) have challenged SB 2's expansive sensitive places list. Preliminary injunctions have been issued against some of the more sweeping provisions.

What "Shall Not Be Infringed" Means Legally

The phrase "shall not be infringed" is among the most debated in constitutional law. Here is what the courts have determined:

It Does Not Mean Zero Regulation

Despite the absolute language, the Court in Heller explicitly stated that the right is "not unlimited." Just as the First Amendment's protection of free speech does not protect fraud, incitement, or true threats, the Second Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms does not extend to all persons, all arms, and all circumstances.

It Means the Government Needs a Strong Historical Justification

After Bruen, "shall not be infringed" effectively means that the government cannot impose a firearms regulation unless it can demonstrate a historical tradition — rooted in the Founding or Reconstruction eras — of analogous restrictions. This is a significantly higher bar than intermediate scrutiny, which only required the government to show that a regulation was "substantially related to an important governmental interest."

It Means More Than the Minimum

The Second Amendment is not a second-class right. In Bruen, Justice Thomas wrote: "We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need." The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the Second Amendment must be treated with the same respect as other enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights.

The Due Process Connection

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment plays a critical role in firearms law beyond just incorporation. Due process requires that before the government deprives any person of "life, liberty, or property," it must provide adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. This principle is central to several firearms law issues:

• Red flag laws (GVROs): Gun Violence Restraining Orders allow courts to order the temporary confiscation of firearms. Due process challenges focus on whether the initial ex parte order (issued without the gun owner present) provides adequate procedural safeguards.
• Prohibited persons lists: Individuals placed on prohibited persons lists (e.g., due to mental health adjudications) have due process rights to challenge their inclusion.
• CCW denials: If a CCW application is denied, the applicant may have due process rights to a hearing, especially under the shall-issue framework where the right is presumptive.

What Comes Next: Post-Bruen Litigation

Bruen did not resolve every Second Amendment question. It created a framework, and lower courts are now applying that framework to a vast range of firearms regulations. Key areas of ongoing litigation include:

Use our Law Tracker tool to follow these cases in real time.

Summary: Three Cases, One Framework

Conclusion

Heller, McDonald, and Bruen together establish that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep firearms in the home and carry them in public for self-defense; that this right applies at every level of government; and that any regulation of this right must be consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in America.

The practical consequences are still unfolding. Courts across the country are applying the Bruen framework to assault weapons bans, magazine restrictions, age limitations, sensitive places, and more. The outcomes of these cases will determine the boundaries of Second Amendment rights for a generation.

Stay informed. Use our 2A Legal tools to track court decisions, look up state-specific laws, and understand your rights under the Constitution.