It's how people use legal words and concepts like they think they know what legal things mean.
They don't - or, at least they don't mean what they think they mean.
You know what I mean?
Probably not - which is why I'm creating a new blog section - "Legal Myth Monday" to cover what things legal mean and how they're applied in real time.
In today's episode, we're dealing with all things Second Amendment which has spent a long time lurking in the constitutional shadows. Then came District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago, New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.
Suddenly, the right to keep and bear arms (and particularly the right to armed self-defense) was no longer something courts could simply treat as constitutional background scenery.
Heller recognized an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes, with self-defense at its core. McDonald made that right applicable to the states. And Bruen changed the rules for evaluating restrictions. When the Second Amendment's text covers the conduct, the government must show that its regulation is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
So let's pull back the curtain, turn on the constitutional flashlight, and expose 15 myths about what the Second Amendment actually protects.
Myth #1: The Second Amendment protects a collective right connected only to militia service.
Reality: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, including for lawful self-defense.
Explanation: The Supreme Court settled the individual-right question in Heller. The militia language announces a purpose; it does not transform the operative right into a collective privilege.
Related Authority: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
What the Case Is About: District of Columbia law effectively prohibited handgun possession in the home and required lawful firearms to be kept inoperable.
Holding: The Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service and to use it for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home.
Cheeky Reality Check: The Second Amendment may mention a militia. That doesn't mean you need to show up at the armory with a membership card.
Myth #2: The Second Amendment applies only to the federal government.
Reality: The Second Amendment right applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Explanation: The Second Amendment was originally understood as a limitation on the federal government. Through the Fourteenth Amendment, however, certain rights protected by the Bill of Rights have been incorporated and made applicable to the states. As a result, the Second Amendment places constitutional limits not only on federal action, but also on state and local governments.
Related Authority: McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).
What the Case Is About: Chicago maintained extremely restrictive handgun laws after Heller was decided.
Holding: The Court held that the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller is fundamental and is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, state and local governments are also bound by the Second Amendment and may not infringe that right in violation of the Constitution.
Cheeky Reality Check: After McDonald, a state cannot simply say, “Nice constitutional right you've got there. Unfortunately, we don't recognize it.”
Myth #3: The Second Amendment protects self-defense only inside the home.
Reality: The right to bear arms for self-defense extends into public spaces.
Explanation: The Supreme Court expressly rejected the notion that the Second Amendment's protection disappears when a law-abiding citizen walks out the front door.
Related Authority: New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).
What the Case Is About: New York required applicants for unrestricted concealed-carry licenses to demonstrate “proper cause,” effectively requiring a special need for self-defense.
Holding: The Court held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's right to carry a handgun publicly for self-defense. Therefore a state may not require a person to demonstrate a special need for self-defense before obtaining a license to carry a handgun in public.
Cheeky Reality Check: Apparently the constitutional right to self-defense doesn't expire when your front-door mat ends.
Myth #4: A citizen must prove some special or extraordinary need before exercising the right to carry for self-defense.
Reality: Ordinary, law-abiding citizens do not have to prove that they are unusually endangered before exercising the right.
Explanation: A licensing system that gives the government discretion to decide who has a “good enough” reason to protect himself is precisely the type of system Bruen rejected.
Related Authority: Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
What the Case Is About: Washington, D.C., required applicants to demonstrate a “good reason” before receiving a concealed-carry license.
Holding: The D.C. Circuit held that the requirement effectively limited public carry to a privileged class of citizens who could demonstrate a special need, and therefore concluded that the District's licensing requirement violated the Second Amendment.
Cheeky Reality Check: “I'm worried about being attacked” is apparently enough to worry about an attack but not, according to D.C.'s old system, enough to prepare for one.
Myth #5: Any licensing requirement for carrying or possessing a firearm is unconstitutional.
Reality: Objective, nondiscretionary “shall-issue” licensing regimes can be constitutional.
Explanation: The Second Amendment does not mean that a person must be allowed to acquire or carry a firearm without any screening or licensing process. What matters is how the licensing system operates. A “shall-issue” system uses objective requirements—such as a background check or safety training—and requires the government to issue the license when those requirements are satisfied.
That is fundamentally different from a “may-issue” system in which officials can decide whether an applicant has a sufficiently good reason to exercise the right. Bruen treated objective, nondiscretionary licensing systems as presumptively constitutional, while rejecting systems that give officials the power to decide which ordinary citizens have a sufficiently compelling need for self-defense.
Related Authority: Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Moore, 116 F.4th 211 (4th Cir. 2024) (en banc).
What the Case Is About: Maryland required prospective handgun purchasers to obtain a Handgun Qualification License after satisfying objective requirements.
Holding: The en banc Fourth Circuit upheld the licensing system, concluding that Bruen recognized the presumptive constitutionality of objective “shall-issue” licensing regimes, provided they do not operate abusively.
Cheeky Reality Check: The Constitution apparently doesn't object to paperwork. It objects when the paperwork becomes a constitutional obstacle course.
Myth #6: The government can make you wait indefinitely to obtain a firearm because the Second Amendment protects possession, not acquisition.
Reality: The right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes meaningful access to acquiring arms.
Explanation: A right to possess something becomes rather theoretical if the government can simply prevent you from acquiring it.
Related Authority: Ortega v. Grisham, 148 F.4th 1134 (10th Cir. 2025).
What the Case Is About: New Mexico imposed a seven-day waiting period on most firearm purchases.
Holding: The Tenth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that the waiting period violated the Second Amendment because the right to bear arms necessarily includes a right to acquire arms, and the government failed to identify a sufficient historical tradition supporting the waiting period.
Cheeky Reality Check: “Sure, you have the right to own a gun. We'll let you know when you can actually get one.”
Myth #7: The government can require firearm training while simultaneously making meaningful training practically impossible.
Reality: The Second Amendment protects conduct necessary to the meaningful exercise of the right, including firearm training.
Explanation: Training and proficiency are closely connected to the lawful use of a firearm for self-defense. A right to possess a firearm for self-defense would be of limited practical value if the government could simultaneously prevent people from learning how to use that firearm safely and effectively.
The Second Amendment protects the meaningful exercise of the right, not merely possession of an object that its owner has never been permitted to practice using. That does not mean every firearm-training facility, course, or practice session receives absolute constitutional protection; reasonable regulation of ranges and training may still be permissible. The important distinction is between regulating firearm training and effectively eliminating the ability to obtain it.
Related Authority: Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011).
What the Case Is About: Chicago required residents to complete firing-range training before obtaining a handgun permit while simultaneously prohibiting virtually all firing ranges in the city.
Holding: The Seventh Circuit held that the range ban severely burdened the Second Amendment right and granted preliminary relief.
Cheeky Reality Check: “Here's your constitutional right. Now here's your mandatory training. And here's a law saying you can't train.” That's not regulation. That's constitutional hide-and-seek.
Myth #8: The Second Amendment protects only firearms that existed when the Amendment was ratified.
Reality: The protection extends to modern bearable arms, not merely eighteenth-century weapons.
Explanation: The constitutional right did not come with an expiration date tied to the last musket manufactured in 1791.
Related Authority: Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016) (per curiam).
What the Case Is About: A woman possessed a stun gun for self-defense. Massachusetts courts concluded that stun guns fell outside the Second Amendment because they were not in existence in 1791.
Holding: The Supreme Court rejected that reasoning, explaining that the Second Amendment protects arms that are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, not merely weapons that existed at the time of the Founding. The fact that modern technology has produced new types of firearms does not, by itself, remove those weapons from the Amendment's protection.
Cheeky Reality Check: If the Founders had intended to constitutionalize only muskets, somebody forgot to put “muskets only” in the fine print.
Myth #9: If a firearm is commonly used for lawful self-defense, the government can ban it simply because it considers the weapon unusually dangerous.
Reality: The government faces a serious constitutional problem when it bans arms that are commonly possessed for lawful purposes.
Explanation: Heller distinguished protected weapons in common use from “dangerous and unusual” weapons. That distinction remains central to modern Second Amendment litigation.
Related Authority: Barnett v. Raoul, Nos. 24-3060 et al., slip op. at 55–65 (7th Cir. July 9, 2026).
What the Case Is About: Illinois's Protect Illinois Communities Act restricted AR-15-style rifles and thirty-round magazines.
Holding: The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld the restrictions under the Bruen/Rahimi historical-tradition framework, concluding that the challenged restrictions were consistent with the principles underlying the Nation's firearm-regulation tradition.
Cheeky Reality Check: Here's the important twist: “Commonly used” does not automatically mean “immune from regulation.” The Constitution may protect the arm, but the government can still have a historical argument to make. And sometimes, surprisingly, it wins.
Myth #10: Once Bruen was decided, virtually every firearm regulation became presumptively unconstitutional.
Reality: No. Bruen created a historical-tradition test not a constitutional demolition derby.
Explanation: The government may still regulate conduct covered by the Second Amendment if it can demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition.
Related Authority: United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024).
What the Case Is About: Rahimi possessed firearms while subject to a domestic-violence restraining order that included a finding that he posed a credible threat to another person's physical safety.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that an individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to another's physical safety may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.
Cheeky Reality Check: Bruen did not say, “History shall be used only when the government loses.” History is the referee here, not the government's designated pinch hitter.
Myth #11: The Second Amendment gives you an unrestricted right to manufacture your own firearm including a 3-D-printed “ghost gun.”
Reality: The Second Amendment does not automatically exempt privately manufactured firearms from regulation.
Explanation: The right to keep and bear arms does not necessarily mean that every method of acquiring or manufacturing an arm is constitutionally immune from regulation. Bruen requires courts to examine whether a challenged restriction fits the Second Amendment's text and the Nation's historical tradition.
Thus, the fact that someone wants to make a firearm for personal self-defense does not, by itself, answer whether the government may regulate how that firearm is manufactured, serialized, or transferred. The constitutional question is whether the particular regulation impermissibly burdens the protected right—not simply whether the firearm was made by its owner.
Related Authority: Defense Distributed v. Attorney General of New Jersey, No. 23-3058, 2026 WL 465147 (3d Cir. Feb. 12, 2026).
What the Case Is About: Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation challenged New Jersey restrictions involving computer files used to manufacture 3-D-printed firearms. They argued, among other things, that the restrictions infringed a Second Amendment right to “self-manufacture firearms.” The district court dismissed the claim, and the plaintiffs appealed.
Holding: The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal. It held that the plaintiffs had not alleged an actual Second Amendment injury because they did not allege that they (or their members) had actually attempted to 3-D print a firearm and been prevented from doing so. The court therefore did not decide that the Second Amendment categorically protects or does not protect self-manufacture of firearms.
Cheeky Reality Check: The Second Amendment may protect your right to have an arm. But that doesn't necessarily mean the Constitution hands you a 3-D printer, a spool of polymer, and a constitutional permission slip.
Myth #12: Anyone who has ever used marijuana is automatically outside the Second Amendment.
Reality: Not necessarily. The government cannot automatically disarm a regular marijuana user solely on that basis without the historical justification the Second Amendment requires.
Explanation: The Second Amendment does not permit the government to disarm an entire category of otherwise law-abiding people simply by labeling that category dangerous. When a person's conduct falls within the Amendment's protection, the government must show that the restriction is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. That does not mean drug users have an unlimited right to possess firearms.
Restrictions involving addiction, current intoxication, or individualized evidence of dangerousness may raise different questions. The important point is that drug use alone does not automatically answer the Second Amendment question.
Related Authority: United States v. Hemani, 608 U.S. 2 (2026).
What the Case Is About: The government relied solely on Hemani's admitted marijuana use to prosecute him for possessing a firearm.
Holding: The Court affirmed dismissal of the prosecution, while expressly leaving open questions involving addicts, people presently intoxicated, individualized proof of dangerousness, and other firearm restrictions.
Cheeky Reality Check: The constitutional question is apparently more complicated than: “Pot? Gun? Prison.” Imagine that.
Myth #13: Being between ages 18 and 20 automatically gives you an unrestricted Second Amendment right to purchase any firearm.
Reality: The question is constitutionally contested, and at least one federal circuit currently upholds age-based purchase restrictions.
Explanation: The Second Amendment does not contain a specific age at which the right to keep and bear arms begins, so age restrictions have to be evaluated under the constitutional framework established by Bruen.
That means the government cannot simply declare that people under 21 are too young to exercise Second Amendment rights; it must demonstrate that the restriction is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Related Authority: Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Bondi, 133 F.4th 1108 (11th Cir. 2025) (en banc), cert. denied, 2026 WL 1871313 (U.S. June 30, 2026).
What the Case Is About: Florida prohibited persons under 21 from purchasing firearms.
Holding: The en banc Eleventh Circuit upheld Florida's 21-year purchase age. The court concluded that, historically, people under 21 were treated as minors who lacked the legal capacity to independently acquire property, including firearms.
NRA v. Bondi noted that although 18-to-20-year-olds are adults for many purposes today, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that their constitutional rights concerning firearm purchases could still be treated differently from those of older adults because of the historical treatment of young adults and minors.
Florida's law was therefore sufficiently analogous to that historical tradition under the Second Amendment's text-and-history framework. The Supreme Court denied review on June 30, 2026, leaving the Eleventh Circuit's judgment in place.
Cheeky Reality Check: The Second Amendment may say “the people,” but courts are still arguing about exactly where adolescence ends and constitutional adulthood begins.
Myth #14: Once a government labels a location a “sensitive place,” the Second Amendment automatically disappears there.
Reality: Sensitive-place restrictions can be constitutional but the government still has to stay within the historical tradition recognized by Bruen and Rahimi.
Explanation: The Supreme Court has identified places such as schools and government buildings as traditional examples of sensitive places. But that doesn't mean a legislature can simply slap a “sensitive” sticker on half the state and declare the Second Amendment closed for business.
Related Authority: Kipke v. Moore, 165 F.4th 194 (4th Cir. 2026).
What the Case Is About: Maryland's SB 1 (the Gun Safety Act of 2023) designated numerous locations as places where firearms could not be carried, including private property open to the public and various public locations.
Holding: The Fourth Circuit examined the challenged restrictions under Bruen and concluded that some restrictions could be historically justified while rejecting Maryland's broad presumptive prohibition on carrying firearms on private property open to the public without the owner's permission. The court's mandate was subsequently stayed while the parties sought Supreme Court review.
Cheeky Reality Check: Calling someplace “sensitive” is a legal argument. It isn't a magic word.
Myth #15: The government can regulate firearm acquisition, sales, and transfers however it wants because the Second Amendment protects only possession and carrying.
Reality: Regulations governing acquisition can implicate the Second Amendment when they meaningfully constrain the ability to possess and bear arms.
Explanation: Courts have distinguished between ordinary commercial regulations and regulations that effectively prevent ordinary citizens from acquiring firearms.
Related Authority: Nguyen v. Bonta, 140 F.4th 1237 (9th Cir. 2025).
What the Case Is About: California prohibited most people from purchasing more than one firearm within a 30-day period.
Holding: The Ninth Circuit held that California's one-gun-a-month law facially violated the Second Amendment because the right to keep arms includes the ability to acquire firearms and the restriction was not supported by the Nation's historical tradition.
Cheeky Reality Check: The government can't necessarily say, “Sure, you have the right to own one. We're just going to make buying another one practically impossible.” At some point, “regulation” starts looking suspiciously like “denial.”
After Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, the Second Amendment is no longer the constitutional wallflower. The Supreme Court has made clear that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, that self-defense sits at its core, and that the right extends beyond the front door.
Government may regulate firearms but it cannot simply declare a regulation reasonable and call it a day. Under Bruen, history gets a seat at the table.
Of course, the Second Amendment isn't a constitutional “Do Whatever You Want With a Gun” card. Rahimi makes that clear.
The real question isn't whether a firearm regulation sounds sensible. Rather, it's whether the regulation is consistent with the text, history, and tradition that define the right. In other words: when it comes to the Second Amendment, the Constitution has receipts and the government better bring some of its own.
