Supreme Court's interpretations
of Constitution's 2nd Amendment
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 DC vs Heller (2008), US Supreme Court demystified 2nd Amendment, explained it phrase-by-phrase,
suggesting this phrasing to help understand it:
Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Supreme Court explained first (preface) and second (operative) clauses are separate,
first clause does not limit second clause, second clause can stand alone:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
In their conclusion of DC vs Heller, (majority of) Supreme Court:
1. Recognized natural right-to-defense.
2. Related 2nd Amendment with right-to-defense.
"Held: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess
a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,
and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense."
In McDonald vs Chicago (2010), Supreme Court ruled Constitution and 2nd Amendment also limits state governments, and reaffirmed:
[..] this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep
and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense [..]
"District of Columbia v. Heller" (case 07-290) - supremecourt.gov
"McDonald v. Chicago" (case 08-1521) - supremecourt.gov