nationalgunrights.org
"National Association for Gun Rights" basically has a good understanding of the Second Amendment.
But, it bears repeating:
The Supreme Court in
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 177. (1803) stated: “Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.” And, in their closing the
Marbury court, at page 179, stated: “Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”
The Supreme Court in
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution. “The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
Then 134 years later the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment applies to the states. See
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).
In 2008 the United States Supreme Court in
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared
“we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited
Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus,
Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.
More importantly,
Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated,
“Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” The Court reiterated,
“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.”