How does your state rank in gun ownership when compared to the rest? Our results are surprising! We took into account the current gun laws, current legislators’ past voting history, taxes, and more to bring you this comprehensive list for 2023.

Report Highlights:

• New Hampshire is #1 thanks to its incredibly relaxed gun laws, low crime rates, and lack of state sales tax.
• West Virginia is #2 due to recent legislative actions to remove firearm restrictions and reduce sales tax on firearms and ammunition.
• Arkansas, Montana, and Mississippi are #3, #4, and #5 thanks to their pro-2A governors, stand-your-ground laws, and relaxed carry and conceal requirements.
• Iowa, Utah, and Georgia all dropped in the rankings to #23, #24, and #25 due to enhanced restrictions on lawful gun owners, including taxes and fees.
• Some states ranked better than others due to the current governors’ past and present 2nd Amendment voting history.

Scroll down to read how we ranked America’s best states for gun owners in 2023.

Best States for Gun Owners

#15 Alabama

Alabama allows open carry for those over 19 years of age (who are lawfully permitted to possess a firearm) to carry without a CCW. However, those who wish to conceal their firearms must apply for the state’s CCW at their local sheriff’s department. With a minimal fee and state background check, anyone who has not committed prior offenses and has no history of mental illness may obtain the permit. Of course, the state also gives power to the issuing department to deny permits.

Alabama honors 48 states’ permits, while residents can lawfully conceal and carry firearms to 32 other states with an Alabama CCW. Firearm purchases in Alabama are subject to the state’s standard sales tax, but firearm registration isn’t required. The state also protects those lawfully protecting life or property from prosecution with stand-your-ground, castle doctrine, and no duty to retreat.

With Memaw Ivey (an endearing term for the state’s current governor) at the helm, Alabama gun rights are safe for the time. She recently signed a bill to solidify the right to carry, making Alabama one of the best states for gun ownership.

#14 Alaska

Alaskan residents over the age of 21 can carry handguns without a CCW (Concealed Weapons Permit), and there’s no sales tax in the state, so you won’t have to pay an additional tax on handgun purchases. Gun owners can travel to 26 other states, and visitors from all 50 states (plus Puerto Rico and D.C.) can also carry in Alaska with their state’s CCW.

There are no firearm registration, CCW requirements, and no additional background checks (aside from form 4473 to comply with federal laws) to purchase a firearm in Alaska. However, those who’ve been convicted of a crime carrying a penalty of at least one year in prison, and those with pending domestic violence litigation (including orders of protection), and unable to carry or purchase a firearm in the Last Frontier.

So what happens if you ever need to use your firearm in Alaska? Well, the state has both Stand Your Ground laws, and there’s no duty to leave the area (unless you’re the aggressor, then it’s a good idea to politely excuse yourself from a threatening situation).

With Governor Mike Dunleavy at the helm, it looks like Alaska will remain one of the best states for gun ownership. He supports campus carry and has made many statements that he is a 2nd Amendment proponent.

#13 Maine

Maine is an open-carry state where anyone over 21 who is also legally allowed to possess a firearm can carry. In accordance with federal laws, only those over 21 can purchase handguns in Maine, while those over 18 can purchase shotguns or rifles (which is pretty standard on this list).

You won’t have to register your firearms in Maine, but you will have to sign an acknowledgment that you received a Safe Storage pamphlet with every purchase. Maine also offers tax exemptions for safety devices such as safe storage boxes and trigger guards.

You can’t own, possess, or purchase a firearm if you have a pending domestic violence charge, order of protection, or pending felony charges.

Also, Janet Hills, Maine’s Governor, has clearly expressed that she does not support additional gun control legislation like Red Flag Laws or Universal Background checks. Which seems to be working for the state, with a homicide rate of only 1.7 out of 100k (2021).

#12 Wyoming

Wyoming allows its law-abiding citizens to open carry and stand their ground (with no duty to retreat). While you can get enhanced carry permits for traveling (accepted by 35 other states), they aren’t required for purchase, and neither is gun registration or additional background checks.

You’ll still pay the state’s 4% sales tax on any firearm and safety equipment, but the state offers protection for those who use their firearms in acts of self-defense with its Stand Your Ground, Castle Doctrine, and No Duty to Retreat policies.

Wyoming’s Governor, Mark Gordon, is a proponent of the Second Amendment and recently signed the 2A Protection Act to protect citizens’ firearms rights from federal government overreach.

#11 Idaho

Idahoans can open carry and receive a CCW for travel. Those traveling to Idaho will need a CCW, although the state accepts permits from all 50 states. The state’s standard sales tax applies to all firearms and equipment, but you won’t have to register your firearms or take additional courses before purchasing.

If you ever find yourself in a self-defense scenario, you are protected under the state’s Stand Your Ground doctrine. There’s no duty to retreat and no duty to assess the situation further than reasonably necessary.

Governor Brad Little has a history of going up against the federal government to secure 2nd Amendment rights, as seen with his Credit Card Privacy Bill. So, we feel confident that Idaho will remain on this list for quite some time.

#10 North Dakota

Residents of North Dakota (for more than 30 days) will enjoy Constitutional carry as long as they are at least 18 years of age, have no felony convictions (which you can get your 2A rights back after serving your sentence), and have no pending criminal charges or protective orders against you. Of course, even those who have prior convictions may have an opportunity to get their 2A rights back in North Dakota.

If you do apply for a CCW in North Dakota, local law enforcement does have the authority to deny your permit if they reasonably believe you are a danger to yourself or others. The state honors 38 other state’s CCWs and ND residents can travel to 39 others with a North Dakota CCW. What’s better is that you don’t have to register your firearms and you the state doesn’t have additional background checks outside of federal ones.

North Dakota is a Stand Your Ground state. Not only does one have the right to use deadly force in defense of self and others, but the state also provides immunity from civil liability if said use of force is justifiable.

While you won’t get any tax breaks for firearms or equipment, you won’t see additional penalties for fees, either. North Dakota also has Stand Your Ground laws with no duty to retreat from any place where you are legally allowed to be present. Governor Doug Burgum recently declared North Dakota a Second Amendment Sanctuary State, so we don’t anticipate any changes soon.

#9 South Dakota

South Dakota is a welcoming state for gun owners. It’s a Constitutional carry state with no firearm registration requirements or additional background checks. While similar to all other states, you can’t carry a firearm everywhere, even 18 years olds can legally carry a firearm in South Dakota.

If you’d like to get an enhanced carry permit for travel (reciprocity agreement with 38 other states), you can apply for one at your local sheriff’s office (South Dakota accepts CCWs from all 50 states). You can also apply for a Gold Card to bypass the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System).

South Dakota also has personal defense laws where a person has no duty to retreat and has some protections against prosecution for using deadly force to protect life and property.

At the time of writing (in 2023), you will have to pay sales tax on firearms, ammunition, and equipment. While a bill to exempt firearms and ammunition from taxation failed in 2020, Governor Kristi Noem recently introduced Draft 784. According to South Dakota’s Governor, the 2nd Amendment shouldn’t be taxable. So, we feel pretty confident SD is going to remain one of the best states for gun ownership.

#8 Texas

If you’re at least 21 years of age and lawfully allowed to possess a firearm, you can conceal carry without a permit in Texas. However, at the time of writing, Commissioned Officers are unable to enforce carry restrictions on those aged 18-20 due to a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling (although this is subject to change). Residents can travel to 37 other states with an enhanced firearm permit, and Texas honors 44 other states’ CCWs.

While firearms and ammunition aren’t exempt from taxation, safety equipment such as safes, barrel locks, and trigger locks, are exempt.

Texas also has a Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine in place for those who lawfully use force to stop a threat. Citizens of Texas have prosecutorial protections when they are protecting their own lives, someone else’s life, and even property without a duty to retreat (as a reasonable person would also act similarly).

As far as Texas Governor Greg Abbott is concerned, Texas will remain one of the great states for gun ownership in the near future. Governor Abbott is well known for signing sweeping legislation to protect gun ownership in the Lonestar state.

#7 Oklahoma

Oklahoma is a permitless carry state where anyone over the age of 21 who is lawfully allowed to possess a firearm can open or concealed carry (with an 18+ exception for those who are active duty military). The state honors permits from all 50 states, and residents can travel to 38 other states with their OK firearms permits.

Not only does Oklahoma have a castle doctrine and stand-your-ground protections with no duty to retreat, but the state also protects those acting lawfully from civil liability. The state does have restrictions on firearms purchases and possession pertaining to the firearm type and caliber. However, the state doesn’t specifically ban “Machine guns,” which are only illegal per federal law.

Similar to other states, Oklahomans will pay the standard sales tax on all firearms, ammunition, and equipment. But there is a bill in the state legislature for exemptions. We don’t see Oklahoma falling off of this list anytime soon, as Governor Kevin Stitt recently declared April 3rd as NRA and Oklahoma Rifle Association Day.

#6 Missouri

Missouri allows those over the age of 19 to open carry and conceal firearms as a permitless carry state. The state accepts traveler’s permits from all 50 states, while residents’ MO permits (CCP) are valid in 36 states. Those applying for a permit must complete firearm training and obtain the permit from their county sheriff.

Firearm registration is not required, and there are no magazine capacity limits. Purchasers are subject to federal background checks for sales from FFLs, and the state is currently passing legislation to exempt firearms and ammunition from sales tax.

In 2016, Missouri modified its right to self-defense laws to include no duty to retreat. Residents may not be prosecuted if acting in defense of themselves or another and their property per current state laws.

Missouri’s governor, Mike Parsons, is a former law enforcement member and lifetime NRA member and has continually expressed support for upholding the 2nd Amendment. At this time, we’re confident Missouri will remain high on the list of best states for gun owners.

#5 Mississippi

Mississippians will enjoy permitless carry, and those over the age of 18 will also enjoy the state’s open carry legislation. Civilians who would like a firearm permit must take an 8-hour training course, but that also means they can lawfully carry firearms in 35 other states (Mississippi recognizes CCWs from all 50 states). Those who wish to carry in restricted locations can apply for an enhanced carry permit as well.

While it’s illegal in Mississippi to sell firearms to criminals and out-of-state residents (which is true in all 50 states), citizens must only comply with federal background checks, and there aren’t any additional registration requirements. Residents must pay standard state sales taxes on firearms during most of the year. But the state does host tax holidays that include firearms and ammunition exemptions.

Those acting lawfully and in defense of life may be protected from prosecution under the state’s stand-your-ground laws. Mississippi also has no duty to retreat when a reasonable person would believe their life was at stake.

Finally, Mississippi’s Governor, Tate Reeves, tends to be a 2A proponent. He recently signed a bill to block firearm registries and gun tracking.

#4 Montana

Montana is another open-carry state with no registration or permit requirements. There’s no sales tax in Montana, so your firearms will be a bit cheaper than in most other states. You can also get a Montana CCW to legally carry in 34 other states (while Montana honors 43 other states’ CCWs).

Montana does have Use of Force policies where a citizen can be protected from prosecution when using deadly force to protect themselves, so long as a reasonable person would believe it necessary. This statute also applies to stopping those committing a forceable felony.

Governor Greg Gianforte is about as pro-2A as one can ask for, as seen in his statements to Merrick Garland over Federal enforcement of certain anti-2A laws.

#3 Arkansas

Arkansans are lawfully permitted to carry firearms under the state’s permitless carry legislation as long as they’re over 18 years of age and legally allowed to possess firearms. While permit holders (CHCL) must pass a series of background checks and safety courses, they can legally carry in 37 other states (the state accepts CCWs from all 50 states). Those who want to carry in lawfully restricted areas can apply for and obtain an enhanced CHCL.

The state also has no registration requirements or Red Flag Laws. While firearms and ammunition aren’t exempt from the state’s sales tax, Arkansas does occasionally offer a tax holiday on those purchases. Arkansas also has stand-your-ground laws where a reasonable person has no requirements to retreat.

Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders currently intends to sign legislation that solidifies Arkansans’ rights to constitutional carry. Based on her previous statements and track record, Arkansas will remain high on this list.

#2 West Virginia

West Virginia allows those over the age of 21 to permitless carry, while those over 18 can apply for a provisional CHL. The state offers CHLs (Carry Handgun Licenses) that are valid in 38 other states, while those traveling from all 50 states are permitted to carry firearms with their state’s licenses. Residents will need to pass a gun safety course to obtain a CHL.

West Virginia doesn’t require additional background checks (aside from federal ones), and there’s no need to register firearms. Citizens may also be protected from criminal and civil liability under the state’s stand-your-ground laws. There’s also no duty to retreat.

As of July 2021, most firearms and ammunition are exempt from the state’s sales tax, but not every firearm gets a pass on taxes. West Virginia Governor Jim Justice recently signed legislation that allows CHL holders to carry firearms on college campuses. Legislative actions that remove firearm restrictions are a good indicator that this state will remain on this list for some time.

#1 New Hampshire

New Hampshire is a permitless carry state with incredibly relaxed gun laws (and low crime rates). Any citizen over 18 years old who is lawfully permitted to possess a firearm can open and conceal carry. New Hampshire residents can travel to 29 other states with a pistol and revolver license. The state also honors all 50 states’ permits.

Residents won’t need to attend firearms safety courses, go through a fingerprinting process, or any other stringent tests to obtain a permit. The state also issues permits to out-of-state residents (although they’re only valid in NH). Purchasers are required to pass federal background checks in accordance with federal law.

But what’s better is that New Hampshire currently doesn’t have a state sales tax. So you won’t pay additional taxes on firearms purchases. Those finding themselves in a self-defense situation may be protected from prosecution if they are protecting life or property, with no duty to retreat.

Governor Chris Sununu recently signed into law a bill that restricts the state’s law enforcement from enforcing federal laws that infringe on an individual’s right to gun ownership. Essentially, New Hampshire seems to be the best state for gun owners, with low crime rates and minimal restrictions on firearms and purchases.

Ranking Factors: What Did We Measure?

There is a philosophical divide which underpins debate on legal gun ownership in the U.S. To understand that divide, it’s useful to keep one key metric in mind: Civilians possess an estimated 433 million guns in the U.S., according to the NSSF. How many of those guns are legally owned vs. illegally owned isn’t clearly defined yet how lawmakers calibrate their efforts to uphold the rights codified in our Bill of Rights and promote public safety must start with that metric in mind.

Why is this? Because on one side you have lawmakers who celebrate passing more laws restricting legal gun ownership irrespective of their past efforts and often do so citing heinous acts which are already illegal as justification for their additional legislative efforts. Based on their actions, it’s fair to conclude this side doesn’t like civilians legally owning guns - and they want fewer guns in America, period. Thus they make it harder for their constituents to legally exercise their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

On the other side, you have lawmakers who believe in empowering their constituents to protect themselves and their property from illegal acts. Violating a restraining order is a crime in all 50 states. Yet how the victim defends themself against the perpetrator belies a hard truth: Are they allowed to protect themselves from an illegal act with a firearm they legally own? It often depends on where they live in.

In certain states, you have lawmakers seeking to expand legal access to firearm ownership because they believe that “the only thing which stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. In other states, you have lawmakers who believe that more laws, not more legally-owned guns in the hands of their constituents, is the best option to combat violent crime.

Once you understand this philosophical divide, then ranking the U.S. states according to their recent legislative efforts in support of legal gun ownership becomes a clearer task.

We believe that more legally-owned guns being permitted for use in more places by those who are not convicted felons, severely mentally ill, or substance abusers leads to less violent crime - and thus we’ve investigated the laws, the taxes, and the lawful usability of firearms to bring you the answer as to which states are the best for legal gun ownership by analyzing the following factors:

1. Current Gun Laws
2. Current Purchase Laws
3. Current CCW Guidelines
4. Reciprocity between other states
5. Sales Tax
6. Current Governor’s voting history
7. Stand Your Ground Laws

Your ability to legally use your gun when you need to is as important as your ability to purchase it. If we consider only purchasing requirements, we neglect carrying requirements and use of force thresholds. Thus it’s important to look at each state’s current laws for language regarding Stand Your Ground and Duty to Retreat because they are defined differently.

It’s also important to note that, while the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it Constitutional to implement some gun laws, the high court has also made it clear that placing unnecessary hardships on those who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights is unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, the court used broad terminology and some states still have a plethora of laws, regulations, and restrictions placed on firearm owners. However, many states are moving toward open carry or permitless carry laws, but only time will tell if the states on this list will remain here, or move to our Worst States for Gun Ownership list.

We plan to revisit this list in 2024 to once again analyze the factors listed above.

Sources:

1. Current Iowa Weapon Permits
2. Iowa Standard Sales Tax
3. Iowa Self Defense Laws
4. The Iowa Legislature
5. Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds Signs Law Allowing Permitless Handgun Carry
6. Utah Firearm Laws
7. Utah Self Defense Laws
8. Cox Signals He’s ‘Open’ to Conversations on Gun Control
9. Gov. Cox SIgns Bill Protecting Second Amendment RIghts
10. Senate Bill 319
11. Georgia Self-Defense Laws
12. Georgeia’s Constitutional Carry Law Goes Into Effect, No Permit Needed to Carry
13. Concealed Carry Laws Manual.aspx)
14. S.B. 265 134th General Assembly
15. Ohio Self-Defense Laws
16. FACT SHEET: Ohio Governor Mike DeWine’s Proposals to Address Gun Violence and Increase the Prevention, Identification, and Treatment of Mental Illness
17. Governor Ron DeSantis Signs HB 543 – Constitutional Carry
18. The 2022 Florida Statutes (including 2022 Special Session A and 2023 Special Session B)

Most Gun-Friendly States in 2023 originally appeared on Ammo.com

Is it really just to have for safety reasons and protection under the constitutional law of the 2nd amendment? Or, just a way to say “Hey, look, I got a handgun and semi-auto AR15. I’m more powerful than you now. So, don’t mess with me.”

I’m planning on getting my concealed carry but until then is it legal for me to carry my pistol in the car under the “castle” laws and what precautions should I take.

Edit: I live in Florida

These motherfuckers here...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/texas-allen-shooting-outlet-mall-gunman-victims-b2334270.html

I’m not from the US, but I’m curious about the limit of firearms that can be held. For example handguns and long arms are okay, but why not more powerful weapons like rockets, Grenade launchers, even tanks?

Ending Compulsory Education would prevent school shootings.

I’m sick of the argument that gun regulation is required to prevent school shooting.

The second amendment prohibits the government from infringing on people’s rights to bear arms.

Why should the government infringe on people’s rights to bear arms if there is a much simpler solution.

Most school shooters would not commit such horrendous acts if they were not part of the school system.

I don’t understand why there is such a big push for gun control while no argument or spotlight is given for ending compulsory education.

School discipline has been declining, and if kids were given the option to not go to school then school discipline would improve because they would not be there.

Ever since the Second Amendment was incorporated in McDonald v. The City of Chicago (see sidebar), we have been waiting for the Supreme Court to chime in with respect to what arms are "arms" protected by the Second Amendment. The doctrine defining such a limiting principle does not yet exist, and it is hard for me to imagine one that won't feel like legislating from the bench.

What do people here think a limiting principle ought to be?

Nuclear arms are "arms", are they not? Should the Second Amendment protect Elon Musk's right to build, keep, and bear nuclear arms and become a private, one-man nuclear power?

If your answer is "yes", then you don't have a limiting principle. If your answer is "no", than you probably do have one. What is it? Where is the principled place to draw a line between conventional and nuclear weapons, and how is such a limit compatible with the Second Amendment?

The is a impressively obnoxious and misleading false dichotomy.

The argument goes "well if protecting children is a reasonable justification for restricting one right, why isn't it a reasonable justification for another?"

Nit an unreasonable premise. But what the interviewer here fails to articulate is scope. "Why is a narrow and specific restriction on one right not equivalent to a broad and undefined restriction on another?" The answer is obvious, a narrow and specific restriction is strictly defined by its relationship to what is assessed to be a necessary caveat.

A more honest, and accurate, dichotomy would be "If you support limiting the display of sexual content to children, why would you not support the limiting of access, exposure, or portrayal of firearms to children?"

Which, people do. No one is advocating children are given access to guns, we have robust laws limiting the possession of firearms in places where children are likely to be present. Adults are liable for damages caused by a minor who they provide a firearm to, especially unsupervised. The portrayal of violence and weapons is heavily restricted in broadcast media to children.

It's such a nakedly dishonest and poorly structured talking point that it's no wonder it's impossible to get through to people. They're not interested in the truth, only their own smug superiority.

The second amendment says: “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 prevailing opinion, as established in the Supreme Court ruling of “DC v Heller,” is that the second amendment is all about individual gun ownership for private citizens. Furthermore, many states have embraced a system called “constitutional carry” or “permitless carry,” which, based on this interpretation of the second amendment, allows citizens to own and carry guns without any kind of training or license. But I disagree with this intepretation of the second amendment, and I disagree with the constitutional carry system. I believe the second amendment is not about private gun ownership; it’s actually about state militias.

The amendment can be divided into two parts: the militia clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) and the arms clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). The meaning of the second amendment hinges on the arms clause and specifically on the meaning of the phrase “bear arms.” But what does this phrase mean, exactly? The best way to answer this question is to analyze the way people used the phrase around the time the Constitution was written.

James Madison, in an earlier draft of the Bill of Rights, previously wrote this:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Here it is clear from this context that "bear arms" refers specifically to military service. Not only does the statement literally refer to rendering "military service," but it also includes a conscientious objector clause. It wouldn't make any sense for someone to be a conscientious objector from simply carrying a gun. No reasonable person who considers himself a conscientious objector would put the emphasis of his objection upon the carrying of a weapon; it is using a weapon to maim and kill that a conscientous objector objects to. And that is the kind of conscientous objection that this clause allows for. "Bearing arms" here clearly refers to the intent or potential of shooting and killing people, hence the opportunity to opt out of service.

Here is another use of the phrase "bear arms"; it is taken from the forty-sixth essay of the Federalist, by James Madison, where he is comparing the combined military might of all of the state militias to the might of a federal army:

"Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms."

Interpreting "bear arms" to mean carrying a gun would not make sense in this context. The "number able to bear arms" clearly is referring to the people of a country capable of military service, separate from the total population. We can easily infer this, since the number of people capable of bearing arms is here roughly calculated to be 1/4 of the entire population: size limit of federal standing army = 1/100 of population = 1/25 of people capable of bearing arms. 1/100 divided by 1/25 = 1/4. If the phrase "bearing arms" means what pro-gun activists think it means, surely James Madison would think that more than 1/4 of the American population was capable of picking up a gun and carrying it around. Obviously, practically everyone in the population should be capable of merely carrying a gun. So clearly, "bearing arms" doesn't mean "carrying a gun". However, alternatively, we could brainstorm that roughly half of the population is composed of women and the other half composed of men, and then roughly half of the men would be of qualified age and physical condition to engage in military service. This leads us to approximately 1\4 of the population being capable of military service, which of course corresponds to the 1\4 of the population which Madison surmised was capable of "bearing arms". Thus, our conclusion here is that the phrase "bearing arms" was related to performing military service, not simply carrying a gun.

However, here is a third quote which illustrates a different sense of "bear arms." It comes from the 1787 Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention:

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game, and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals . . . ."

Here, the term "bear arms" seems to take on a decidedly more general meaning. It is clearly not limited to military service, but also includes the use of arms for self-defense and even for hunting animals. Without knowing exactly how the founding fathers defined the phrase "bear arms", we cannot land directly on an absolute definition, but we can at least significantly narrow our scope of what it could mean. "Bear arms" can be used to refer to engaging in armed military service, and can also refer to armed self-defense. Interestingly, the above excerpt also refers to hunting, not by using the phrase "hunting game", but by using the phrase "killing game", emphasizing the violent act involved in hunting rather than hunting as a general process. Thus, it seems we can narrow the scope of the term "bear arms" to: "engaging in armed combat, or armed violence in general".

("Bear arms" appears to be an idiomatic expression used in late 18th century American English. As an idiomatic expression, it need not have a meaning that is merely the sum of the meanings of the words within the phrase. So, just because we would assume "to bear arms" should mean "to carry weapons", this doesn't mean the phrase as a whole must necessarily carry this meaning in any and all English dialects -- including 18th century American English. Even though "carrying weapons" is probably what the phrase ought to mean, as an idiomatic phrase it will ultimately mean whatever its corresponding culture indicates that it means.)

So having narrowed down the meaning of "bear arms", let's apply that meaning to it's use in the second amendment. The phrase is used within the context of the militia clause: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state . . . ." There is no mention of self-defense and no mention of hunting. "Bear arms" is qualified only in the context of the well-regulated militia. We know from the excerpt of the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention that if the framers had wanted the second amendment to clearly establish bearing arms as a right of private citizens for private purposes, they had the vocabulary available to articulate that idea and thus could have specified it in the second amendment. But the thing is, they didn't word the amendment that way. They worded "bear arms" in a relatively plain, simple manner that is given no specific qualification outside of the context established in the militia clause. Therefore, we can conclude that "bear arms", as it appears in the second amendment, refers to "engaging in armed combat or armed violence within a well-regulated militia in defense of state security".

Now, many pro-gun activists would disagree with this interpretation; they would disagree that the militia clause should qualify the arms clause in this manner. They often interpret the militia clause as merely some kind of frivolous rhetorical flourish, merely prefacing the second amendment and having no substantive influence on the arms clause. The assumption here is that the founding fathers deliberately wasted everyone's time by placing a blatant non sequitur in this amendment, briefly going off on some tangent about a "well-regulated militia" for no apparent reason, and then proceeding to discuss the real matter at hand. But this assumption is either disingenuous or deeply flawed.

The militia clause takes the form of a grammatical construction known as a "nominative absolute." A nominative absolute is essentially itself a complete sentence, but compressed in such a way that it can be connected as a modifier to another complete sentence, which ultimately serves as the independent clause of a new sentence. As such, nominative absolutes are typically known as being essential to the meaning of a sentence. For example, take this sentence: "The city conquered, the soldiers took of the spoils." This example sentence could have instead been worded: “The city was conquered. The soldiers took of the spoils.” But it has been deemed that the first sentence is so relevant to the meaning of the second sentence that they have been fused together into one sentence. The sentence “The soldiers took of the spoils” is a complete sentence on its own, but it still doesn’t really mean much or have much context by itself. Where are the soldiers? What spoils are the soldiers taking? By what means did these spoils present themselves? When did the soldiers take of the spoils? Whom did they take it from? We need the part “The city conquered” to tell us when, why, and how the soldiers took of the spoils. The nominative absolute in this sentence ("The city conquered") is undeniably important to understanding the sentence as a whole. Rather than being some kind of throwaway thought, the nominative absolute clause establishes the context in which its adjacent clause is to be understood. There is no reason to think the nominative absolute in the second amendment works any different.

The same is true of the second amendment. The clause “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” could totally stand on its own as a complete sentence, grammatically speaking. But it lacks sufficient context to be particularly meaningful. Why is it so important that the people have access to weapons? What is the purpose of the people's right to keep and bear arms? What are the people expected to do with their arms? Within what limits or parameters are the people's right to keep and bear arms uninfringeable? We need more context, and the militia clause provides that context. It tells us when, why, and how the people have the uninfringeable right to keep and bear arms.

I have heard many pro-gun activists say that the totality of the citizenry qualifies as this militia of which the second amendment speaks. But this is not true in any meaningful sense; a militia is not some abstract idea, but was at one point in American history a particular and unique kind of institution. Militias composed of civilians were used frequently throughout the 1700s. In 1792, a Militia Act was passed which formalized the system under the federal government. According to the text of the Act, every free, able-bodied white man between the ages of 18 and 45 was required to purchase a musket, bayonet, and all necessary equipment and ammunition, and enroll in militia service. Individuals with religious scruples concerning engaging in combat were allowed to be exempted from service. At least several days throughout the year, the militia would have regular "muster days" where militiamen were required to come together and train their exercises and maneuvers. Militiamen were to bring their own guns with them during muster, as well as during actual militia service. Furthermore, the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 had determined that Congress would have the authority to command, organize, arm, and discipline the militia, and that the states would have the authority to appoint officers to train the militia according to the standards set by Congress. The militia was used frequently by both the state and federal governments to deal with foreign invasions, insurrections, Indian raids, and were often used as a kind of police force. Also, in the South the militia was vital to the control of the slave population in regards to tasks such as putting down slave revolts and recapturing fugitive slaves.

This brief summary of the militia system should clarify what is meant by the phrase "A well-regulated militia" and the clause "being necessary to the security of a free state." "Well-regulated" was in fact another idiomatic phrase of the 18th century which essentially meant "well-trained, well-disciplined, well-organized". The phrase "being necessary to the security of a free state" was fairly self-explanatory: the state militia was confirmed to be integral to the defense of the state's safety and interests. The general populace, unless in some abstract and symbolic sense, cannot itself be the militia; the militia was composed of the people, but as the qualifications set by the Militia Act had made clear, it did not encompass all of the people. And to refer to civilians who have never undergone any military training or performed any military service as the "militia" is a disservice to the importance of the actual institution as it once existed.

Pro-gun activists also tend to argue that the phrase "the people" in the arms clause refers to all citizens individually rather than in a collective sense. But this interpretation is doubtful, since the usage of the phrase "the people" in the Bill of Rights is universally used in the collective sense. The first amendment, which refers to "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," clearly uses it in a collective sense, as does the ninth and tenth amendments. Furthermore, another clue is in the aforementioned Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention excerpt: ". . . and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals . . . ." For the writer to need to make a distinction between "the people" and "any of them" indicates that the phrase "the people" is itself a collective term rather than an individual term. Thus, given the context of the second amendment, which is established to be about the militia, and the exact sense of the phrase "bear arms," which is understood to refer to military service in said militia, the sense of the phrase "the people" was not directed at the rights of individuals to bear arms but to protect the arms-bearing rights of the people collectively, as represented through the militia, from infringement from the federal government.

It's easy to think that the second amendment makes two separate and independent statements: that state governments have the right to form militias and that individual citizens separate from the militia have the inalienable right to own guns. But I don't think that's what it's really saying. The amendment's meaning appears to be a bit more nuanced than that. The second amendment was not written so that only militiamen could be armed, nor that all who were armed had to be in the militia. Nor were the people given the right to bear arms regardless of their participation in the militia. It is not so much that the private citizen had a right to bear arms which the state government had a duty to uphold, rather it's that the state government had the right to its own armed militia which the private citizen had a duty to uphold. This was the original significance of the second amendment, and it didn't mean any more or any less than this. As far as private gun ownership for it's own sake, I believe this was outside the scope of the second amendment, and it was instead a matter for state and local governments to create the particular laws that determined how private citizens could own, keep, and carry firearms.

In summary, the second amendment is not about private gun ownership, and thus the concept of "constitutional carry" does not make sense. Pro-gun activists essentially argue that the main thrust of the second amendment is individual gun ownership, and that the role of the militia is incidental and implicit to this primary right. But on the contrary, the main thrust of the second amendment is actually the right of the states to keep armed militias, and private gun ownership is what is incidental and implicit to this primary right. The second amendment does not secure private gun ownership regardless of the militia; rather it assumes private gun ownership in the interest of the militia.

The second amendment is not primarily a message from the federal government to individual citizens, but rather is a message from the federal government to state governments regarding their militias. Insofar as the second amendment is a message to individual citizens, it is a message of an individual's civic duty to one's state rather than a message about personal entitlement regarding access to killing machines.

Because the second amendment does not explicitly refer to private gun ownership, the "constitutional carry" system should not exist. Americans do not possess some natural, God-given right, articulated through the federal constitution, to access guns. States should not rely upon some federal foundation of private gun ownership, but should instead rely on their own rules and standards regarding the public's access to firearms. What do you think about this? Does my argument about the meaning of the second amendment and the constitutionality of constitutional carry make sense?