&gt; Arguably, Heller was decided wrongly<p>Let&#x27;s keep in mind the text of the Constitution:<p>&gt; [T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms[] shall not be infringed.<p>The foundation of this discussion is simple: that right shall not be infringed. Courts through US history have respected its value and significance:<p>&gt; In Nunn v. State, 1Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:<p>&gt; “The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law which contravenes this right, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void [...]”<p>Any law which contravenes this right is <i>repugnant to the Constitution and void</i>. That&#x27;s a pretty strong statement to make, and it has been reinforced on many occasions.<p>&gt; In State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States [...].”<p>So, why do you believe it was decided wrongly? It seems clear to me that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the individual right to bear arms, not just for military service but for self-defense. The right was seen as necessary for a free society, both in the sense of the strength to resist invasions as well as to resist tyranny of one&#x27;s own government.<p>There was dissent in the Heller case, but not about whether the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right. Both of the dissenting votes recognized that it does.