June 15, 1804.Superseded by Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment.

 Once more, language which tracks theSecond Amendment is used to protect an individual right.
Photo provided by Pexels

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Vermont, like Pennsylvania,contributed part of this language to the federal Second Amendment, evidencingthe state's interpretation that recognition of the people's right to bear armswas a recognition of an individual right. Vermont courts have been especiallystrict in protecting individual arms rights when interpreting the stateconstitution. For example, an 1892 decision declared that the government couldnot require licenses for the carrying of concealed weapons.

See, e.g., David Yassky, The SecondAmendment: Structure, History and Constitutional Change, 99 Mich. L. Rev. 588, 589 (2000).
Photo provided by Flickr

Repeal the Second Amendment - The New York Times

The 1896 Utah Constitution stated: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law." In 1984, the people of Utah adopted a new provision,strengthening the right. "The people" wasreplaced by "The individual right of the people," apparently to forestall thekind of "collective rights" misreading which, in 1984, was often applied to theSecond Amendment. The purposes of the right were broadened to all "other lawfulpurposes." And the legislature was no longer allowed to regulate "the exercise" of the right, but only to define "the lawful use of arms."

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Photo provided by Flickr

The constitutional right to armsprovisions New Mexico, New Hampshire, Nebraska, and Montana were adopted as early as 1889 and as late as 1988,but each constitution uses "right to keep and bear arms" to refer unmistakably to anindividual right to arms. The usage reflects the shared understanding of thevast majority of the American people that the same phrase in the SecondAmendment likewise guarantees a right to every responsible citizen. The popularvotes in favor of creating and strengthening these provisions attest to theperceived contemporary importance of the right to keep and bear arms.

The exact wording of the Second Amendment isinterpreted as recognizing an individual right in North Carolina state courts.
Photo provided by Flickr


The Real Second Amendment | Turning the Tide

Except for the concurringopinion in the 1840 Arkansas case, which was ignored by future Arkansas courts, there was no legalprecedent for the Kansas court's theory. All precedent had treated the SecondAmendment and its state analogues as individual rights. Thus, the Kansas Supreme Court, prefiguring the scholarship of MichaelBellesiles,simply offered citations to precedentswhich, when actually examined, were contrary to the court's theory. All of theprecedents cited by the Kansas Supreme Court upheld particular gun controls,while treating the right to arms as an individual right.

Federal Cases Regarding the Second Amendment

Some scholars read the Second Amendment as if itcontains only the first clause, concerning the militia. Yet this misreadingignores the fact that when Virginians wanted to add an explicit individualright to their state constitution, they added the main clause of the SecondAmendment.

Federal Cases Regarding the 2nd Amendment TABLE OF CONTENTS

Virginia's 1776 constitutionextolled the militia and denounced standing armies. "That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."The militia part of this provision contributed language which, in more conciseform, became the first part of the Second Amendment.

could get their Second Amendment ..

Textually, the Massachusetts Constitution offers strong language for the anti-individual interpretation; the right is only "for the common defence"and the right is in the same sentence as restrictions on standing armies,whereas the Second Amendment contains no such language. Also, the 1976 Massachusetts court could rely on the1905 Kansas case, since the Kansas Supreme Court did notabandon that case until 1979.