I have not seen much in the way of books on the Second Amendment books or any relating to 2A history. I would say a starting point is the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers along with other writings prior to the Revolutionary war by such writers a Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, Noah Webster, James Madison and I am sure there are others. These generally made comments about the citizens being so well armed that a standing army would have a chance to withstand them.
You also need to consider that the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government until the 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868. I have not seen any SCOTUS cases that even mention firearms before 1868 except a couple of patent cases and nothing involving 2A.
The first 2A case heard by SCOTUS was before the Court began selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights making them applicable to the states and said:
- The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 547, 23 L. Ed. 588 (1875)
The court later wrote:
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.
Presser v. People of State of Ill., 116 U.S. 252, 265, 6 S. Ct. 580, 584, 29 L. Ed. 615 (1886)
In more recent jurisprudence, the Court took the stance, while addressing the NFA, that 2A applied to a “well regulated militia:”
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.
4 The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power-‘To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.’ U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, s 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they *179 were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia-civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178–79, 59 S. Ct. 816, 818, 83 L. Ed. 1206 (1939)
It is interesting to me that since this opinion short barrel rifles and shotguns have become relatively common for both military and law enforcement!
The more well known recent decisions are of course Heller and McDonald. The Heller case is notable because it held:
Holdings: The Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, held that:
1 the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms;
2 statutes banning handgun possession in the home violated Second Amendment; and
3 statute containing prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for purpose of immediate self-defense violated Second Amendment.
D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008)
But, since Heller is a federal enclave, it did not address whether 2A was applicable to the states. Then came the McDonald case which held,
Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home. Chicago (hereinafter City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens. After Heller, petitioners filed this federal suit against the City, which was consolidated with two related actions, alleging that the City’s handgun ban has left them vulnerable to criminals. They sought a declaration that the ban and several related City ordinances violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Rejecting petitioners’ argument that the ordinances are unconstitutional, the court noted that the Seventh Circuit previously had upheld the constitutionality of a handgun ban, that Heller had explicitly refrained from opining on whether the Second Amendment applied to the States, and that the court had a duty to follow established Circuit precedent. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, relying on three 19th-century cases— United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588, Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615, and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 14 S.Ct. 874, 38 L.Ed. 812—which were decided in the wake of this Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Slaughter–House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394.
Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.
McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 561 U.S. 742, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010)
You will notice in McDonald, that there are a number of earlier cases that did not incorporate 2A into 14A based upon the privileges and immunities clause. McDonald incorporated based upon 2A being a fundamental right.
As far as a true history, this would need to be followed through each state. I am attaching link to a short history of concealed carry in Kentucky. This is pretty up to date including Kentucky’s “Constitutional Carry” law that went in to effect in July of 2019.
But that’s a very thorough answer and I appreciate the time you took. I got confused on the U.S. v Miller case. I had always learned that as an important 4th Amendment ruling, but I guess “Miller” is a common name.
