How does the individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment differ from the collective-right interpretation?

The interpretation of the Second Amendment has historically been divided between two primary theories regarding the scope of the right to "keep and bear arms."12

Individual-Right Interpretation

The individual-right theory posits that the Second Amendment protects a personal right for individuals to possess firearms, independent of any service in a militia. This view holds that the amendment allows for the use of firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, most notably self-defense within the home. This interpretation was formally endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, which established that self-defense is the "central component" of the right.123

Collective-Right Interpretation

In contrast, the collective-right theory argues that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a personal right to own firearms. Instead, it suggests the amendment protects the right of states to maintain organized militias or that an individual's right to bear arms is strictly connected to their service in such a militia. For much of the 20th century, this was the dominant judicial interpretation, supported by many scholars and judges who viewed the amendment as a means to ensure the security of a free state through organized military participation rather than individual ownership.12