Does the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution recognise an individual right, or a collective one?

Answer 1

"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."

Let's take it a phrase at a time:

"A well-regulated militia" - After the Revolutionary War (much of which was fought with the personal arms of those volunteering), it was apparent that local militias be maintained for the security of the nation.

"being necessary to the security of a free state" - As mentioned above, it was deemed obvious that people maintain their own weapons and form local militias in case of the need to repel a foreign invader.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms" - The most obvious point of all, this phrase grants the right of the people (NOT the community or nation) to keep weapons in their homes.

"shall not be infringed" - No laws can make it illegal for Americans to have personal weapons.

As with other first amendment rights, this amendment, for the safety of others, is slightly amended when necessary. For example, people with a history of violent crime shouldn't be allowed to have weapons. This kind of law has precedent, however: with the Freedom of Speech, not all speech is Constitutionally protected (libel and slander being the most obvious of these).

And for the record, the National Guard is not a militia in the Constitutional sense.

Answer 2

There's a split of authority.

For those who need the quote: "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."

Personally, I prefer the collective right approach, because of the preface clause referring to the "well-regulated militia" and the symmetry between that, the federal powers relating to militias in Article I Section 8 and the limitations on state troops in Article I Section 10. The grant in the 2nd Amendment clarifies the ability of the militias authorized in Article I to be armed.

Also, most people forget that the 2nd Amendment is not incorporated against the states. Meaning that the limitation (or right) applies only relative to federal regulation of firearms, not against state/local regulation.

Answer 3

The specific wording talks about the rights of the people to organize a well-regulated militia; and in order to do that, individuals' rights to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Since it's been broadly interpreted, we've gotten ourselves a pretty unregulated bunch of gun toters.

Fun fact: The modern day "well-regulated militia" is the National Guard.

Answer 4

I don't recall the exact wording and since you gave no link.. oh well.

Answer 5

collective.