The text of the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution reads:

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.

This is somewhat narrowly worded in the sense that it does not say anything about a right to manufacture, buy, sell, gift, or otherwise traffic arms. However, since the enumerated right to "keep and bear" (whatever that means) is not intended as a dead letter, some amount of legal gun manufacturing and transfer would seem to be a background assumption.

Does the current legal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment understand it as protecting arms manufacturing and trafficking? Where in the case law is such reasoning developed?

  • United States v Rock Island Armory – eggyal Aug 5 at 7:03

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.