Heller Decision and the Second Amendment
So, we've been getting a lot of comments about the ACLU's stance on the Second Amendment. For those of you who didn't catch our response in the blog comments, here it is again:
The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.
As always, we welcome your comments.
Stay informed
Sign up to be the first to hear about how to take action.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
- News & CommentaryMar 2025
Civil Liberties
Five State and Local Entities Safeguarding Our Civil RightsFive State and Local Entities Safeguarding Our Civil Rights
Governors, attorneys general, mayors, and other local officials are starting to vocally say no to President Donald Trump’s radical and dangerous agenda. Here’s why their roles are so crucial for our democracy and the state of civil liberties today. - News & CommentaryFeb 2025
Civil Liberties
Where Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Nominee Harmeet Dhillon Stands on Civil LibertiesWhere Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Nominee Harmeet Dhillon Stands on Civil Liberties
The ACLU has more than 100 years’ experience holding power accountable. As President Donald Trump rolls out his key nominations, we analyze how his nominee for assistant attorney general for civil rights will impact civil liberties. - News & CommentaryFeb 2025
Civil Liberties
State and Local Governments Are Saying No to Trump's Radical AgendaState and Local Governments Are Saying No to Trump's Radical Agenda
To resist the Trump administrations’ attacks on our rights, local lawmakers across the country are protecting LGBTQ people, immigrants and reproductive health. - Montana Supreme CourtFeb 2025
Free Speech
+2 Issues
City of Kalispell v. DomanCity of Kalispell v. Doman
This case asks whether the state can arrest, charge, and convict someone under Montana’s obstruction statute for exercising their federal and state constitutional right to record police officers in public spaces. The defendant was filming a traffic stop when police instructed him to move farther away. When he did not move as far as they wanted, they arrested him for obstructing a peace officer. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant arguing that the officer’s refusal to allow the defendant to peacefully record police activity from a public sidewalk was, in effect, a content-based restriction on speech that could not be justified under strict scrutiny. Even if the restriction was not content-based, our brief argues that it is not a reasonable time place or manner restriction.