Which statement accurately describes the modern status of the Second Amendment's application to the states?

Which statement accurately describes the modern status of the Second Amendment's application to the states?

• A. The Second Amendment is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, with Heller recognizing an individual right and McDonald applying it to the states.
• B. The Second Amendment is not incorporated and remains federal-only.
• C. The Second Amendment's application to the states is unsettled with no controlling modern case.
• D. The Second Amendment rights do not apply to private individuals.

Answer: (A)

Incorporation of the Second Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment is the key idea. Heller holds that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home. McDonald v. City of Chicago then extended that individual right so it binds state and local governments as well, via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. So, today the Second Amendment is incorporated and applies to state governments just like it does to the federal government. The other statements conflict with controlling authority. It’s not federal-only, since McDonald makes the states follow the same right. It isn’t unsettled, because McDonald provides a controlling modern ruling. And while the practical scope of gun regulation involves private actors in many contexts, the constitutional protection itself is a constraint on state action, not a blanket statement about private individuals.

Incorporation of the Second Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment is the key idea. Heller holds that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home. McDonald v. City of Chicago then extended that individual right so it binds state and local governments as well, via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. So, today the Second Amendment is incorporated and applies to state governments just like it does to the federal government.

The other statements conflict with controlling authority. It’s not federal-only, since McDonald makes the states follow the same right. It isn’t unsettled, because McDonald provides a controlling modern ruling. And while the practical scope of gun regulation involves private actors in many contexts, the constitutional protection itself is a constraint on state action, not a blanket statement about private individuals.