List of firearm court cases in the United States
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 Wellfare 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. We think it clear  that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. State courts. Bliss v. Commonwealth. "Bliss v. Commonwealth" (1822, Ky.) addressed the right to bear arms pursuant to Art. 10, Sec. 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799): "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." This was interpreted to  include the right to carry a concealed sword in a cane. "Bliss" has been described as about "a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment." Others, however, have seen no conflict with the Second Amendment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statute under consideration in "Bliss" since "The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws." "Bliss  stated, But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution. The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of  the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799) did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. The "Bliss" ruling, to the extent that it dealt with concealed weapons, was overturned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The  right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was "Bliss v. Commonwealth". The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated  that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified." The importance of "Bliss" is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky, and former United States Attorney General. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that "a man has a right to carry arms; I am aware of  nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest tribunal, the Court of Appeals." As noted by Cornell, "Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in "Bliss" and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted." Aymette v. State. In "Aymette v. State", 21 Tenn. 154, 156 (1840), the Tennessee Supreme Court construed the guarantee in Tennessee's  1834 Constitution that " 'the free white men of this State, have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.' " Explaining that the provision was adopted with the same goals as the Federal Constitution's Second Amendment , the court wrote: "The words 'bear arms' ... have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress. As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common  defence, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment." Nunn v. Georgia. The Georgia Supreme Court ruled in "Nunn v. Georgia" (1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)) that a state law ban on handguns was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds. In "District of Columbia v. Heller "(2008), the U.S. Supreme Court said "Nunn," "Perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthered the  purpose announced in the prefatory clause." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which  contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta! State v. Buzzard. In contrast, in "State v. Buzzard" (1842 Ark.), the Arkansas Supreme Court adopted a militia-based, political right, reading of the right to bear arms under state law, and upheld the 21st section of the second article of the Arkansas Constitution that declared, "that the free white men of this State  shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense", while rejecting a challenge to a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. Buzzard had carried a concealed weapon and stood "indicted by virtue of the authority of the 13th section of an act of the Legislature prohibiting any person wearing a pistol, dirk, large knife or sword-cane concealed as a weapon, unless upon a journey, under the penalties of fine and imprisonment." Justice Lacy, in a dissenting opinion in "Buzzard", summarizing the majority viewpoint to which he disagreed, declared: That the words "a well regulated  militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions [i.e., Ark. and U.S.] and prove that it is a political and not an individual right, and, of course, that the State, in her legislative capacity, has the right to regulate and control it: This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms. Joel Prentiss Bishop's influential "Commentaries on the Law of Statutory Crimes" (1873) took Buzzard's militia-based interpretation, a view that  Bishop characterized as the "Arkansas doctrine" (that the State may regulate the manner in which arms are carried), as the orthodox view of the right to bear arms in American law. Political scientist Earl Kruschke has categorized both "Bliss" and "Buzzard" as being "cases illustrating the individual view." Professor Eugene Volokh revealed, in the California Political Review, that a statement in a concurring opinion in "Buzzard" was the only support for a collective right view of the right to keep and bear arms in the 19th century. Wilson v. State of Arkansas. In "Wilson v. State of Arkansas" (1878 Ark. ), the Arkansas Supreme Court dealt with a conviction arising under an Arkansas state law which prohibited a person from carrying a pistol "except upon his own premises or when on a journey, or when acting as or in aid of an officer", the same law addressed in the "Buzzard" decision of 1848. At trial, Wilson was indicted and convicted of the act, and appealed to the state supreme court. The court reversed the trial court's decision citing an array of state decisions which permitted the state to regulate the manner of carrying a concealed weapon, but that the law  at issue restricting such action to one's own premises, while on a journey, or when acting in aid of an officer was constitutionally invalid. The "Wilson" decision effectively overturned the prior holding in "Buzzard". The opinion, authored by Chief Justice English, included the following assertion: No doubt in time of peace, persons might be prohibited from wearing war arms to places of public worship, or elections, etc. But to prohibit the citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm, except upon his own premises or when on a journey traveling through the country with baggage, or when acting as  or in aid of an officer, is an unwarranted restriction upon his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege. Salina v. Blaksley. In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court, in "Salina v. Blaksley", became the first court to interpret the right to keep and bear arms as being only a "collective right". The Kansas high court declared: "That the provision in question applies only to the right  to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution, which says: '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.'" In 2010, "Salina v. Blaksley" was overruled by the passage of an amendment to the Kansas State Constitution. The amendment provides: People v. Aguilar. In 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court in "People v. Aguilar" held that a total ban on carrying  firearms outside the home violated the Second Amendment and was unconstitutional. Applying "Heller", "McDonald", and "Moore v. Madigan" (a Seventh Circuit decision), the Illinois Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Aguilar, stating that the right to self-defense was at the core of the Second Amendment.