Hat right is implied by the second amendment’s right to bear arms? the right to own property the right to defend one’s honor the right to form a private militia the right to protect yourself

the right to protect yourself

The Second Amendment states "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 interpretation has changed but the current interpretation and original intent were to provide protection from a overpowering government.

The Second Amendment has been the subject of Supreme Court rulings a few times with historic significance. The first case in 1939, was regarding the state regulation of shotguns and the plaintiff argued he had the right to his gun with no regulation. The Court sides with the state and decided the amendment meant the state could form protective services and serve as a Militia but the individual did not have that same right. This ruling stood until 2008 when Washington DC put a ban on handguns and was challenged. The Court came back with a personal interpretation of the amendment stating the individual had the right to personal firearms and the government could not regulate. This decision was upheld for a similar case two years later in Chicago.

b or c im pretty sure

lol, i think so.

explanation: