Second 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.

The pro-control people argue that the US Supreme Court has never upheld an individual right to keep and bear arms, but this isn't quite true.

There are a number of circuit court cases that establish the Second Amendment as a collective and not an individual right:

Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98, 100-01 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that plaintiff lacked standing to sue for denial of concealed weapons permit, because Second Amendment does not protect possession of weapon by private citizen; right to bear arms is held by the states);
Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120, 124 (4th Cir. 1995) (holding that Second Amendment does not confer absolute individual right);
United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106-07 (6th Cir. 1976) (holding that Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right; fact that an individual citizen, like all others, may enroll in state militia does not confer right to possess submachine gun);
Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 920-23 (1st Cir. 1942) (holding that federal government may limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual);
Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 935 F. Supp. 1307, 1318 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) (holding that Second Amendment right to bear arms establishes a collective rather than an individual or private right).

However, the Supreme Court has several interesting cases that involve the Second Amendment, particularly United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

In that case, Justice McReynolds described the purpose of the Second Amendment as "assur[ing] the continuation and render[ing] possible the effectiveness of [the Militia]." He contrasted the Militia with troops of a standing army, which the Constitution indeed forbade the states to keep without the explicit 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." McReynolds noted further that "the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators [all] [s]how plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

First, the Supreme Court held in the U.S. v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) that a private individual who violated another's right to bear arms did not violate the Federal Civil Rights Act because the Second Amendment does not protect against private intereference. They went on to say that the First Amendment doesn't hold against private intereference, either.

This means that the Supreme Court is reading the Second Amendment just as it is the first, and the Second is subject to any of the restrictions that can be placed on the First.

Later, in PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) they held that an armed assembly was not protected, but reaffirmed that individuals were (reaffirmed because a century earlier, in 1780, the Chief Magistrate in London ruled that the right to keep and bear arms individually is guaranteed under Common Law, but collectively it was limited by the principle of forestalling terror and alarm and treason).

This brings up an important point. In England, British Common Law already contained provisions for individuals to keep and bear arms. However, it was not legal for groups to gather and arm themselves, for fear that they would move against the ruling authority. The framers of the Constitution, understanding the obvious need to be able to move against a corrupt government, chose to emphasize the formation of a militia as one reason for the need to keep and bear arms. There's a good article explaining the language of the Second Amendment here. This document was actually cited in a US District Court case recently which has a lot of other information about the Second Amendment. This case is available here.

In fact, in the above case, the District Court cites the Supreme Court finding in United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 292 (1904) and Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276, 298 (1930) as well as United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990), all of which in one way or another upheld the individual right enumerated by the Second Amendment, saying that the whole of the Constitution should be taken together, and that if "the People" refers in one place to each and every individual, then it should be considered consistent throughout the document.