Facts of the Case

The Colfax Massacre of 1873 in Louisiana, where a white mob killed over 100 African Americans, led to federal charges under the Enforcement Act of 1870. The Act was meant to protect citizens’ constitutional rights, including the right to vote, the right to assemble, and the right to bear arms. William Cruikshank and others were charged for conspiring to prevent African Americans from exercising their rights, specifically targeting their right to bear arms and peacefully assemble.

Constitutional Question

Does the federal government have the authority to prosecute individuals for violations of the Second Amendment when the violations are carried out by private individuals and not state actors?

Arguments

For the United States (prosecution):

• The Enforcement Act was designed to protect the civil rights of all citizens, including the right to bear arms for self-defense, a fundamental liberty protected under the Second Amendment.
• The federal government must protect African Americans from violence and deprivation of their constitutional rights, including the right to possess and carry arms.

For Cruikshank and the other defendants:

• The protections guaranteed by the Second Amendment apply only to federal and state governments and do not restrict private individuals.
• The federal government cannot prosecute individuals under the Second Amendment because the right to bear arms is only protected against government infringement, not private actions.

The Decision

The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not prosecute Cruikshank and the other defendants under the Enforcement Act for infringing on the Second Amendment rights of African Americans. The Court held that the Second Amendment, like other protections in the Bill of Rights, only applied to actions by the federal government. The ruling emphasized that the right to bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution, but rather a pre-existing right that the Constitution does not restrict from private interference. The Court concluded that individuals seeking protection from private violence must rely on state governments, not the federal government, for redress.

Significance

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court established a significant interpretation of the Second Amendment, limiting its scope. The Court’s decision reflected the view that the Second Amendment restricts the federal government’s authority, but not that of individual states. This interpretation meant that states had the power to regulate gun ownership without infringing on the constitutional rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Key Interpretations from the Decision:

1. Federal vs. State Authority: The Court held that the Second Amendment does not apply to state governments. Instead, it is a limitation on federal power. The language of the Second Amendment—stating that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”—was understood to constrain only the federal government from imposing restrictions on gun rights. It did not impose similar restrictions on state governments.
2. State Control over Militias and Gun Regulation: The decision allowed states to maintain significant control over gun ownership and the regulation of militias. Since the Second Amendment only applied to federal actions, states were free to enact laws that regulated firearms within their borders. This means that states could impose restrictions on gun ownership, regulate militia activities, and enact gun control measures without violating the Second Amendment.
3. Private Actors Not Bound by the Second Amendment: The ruling clarified that the Second Amendment does not provide a means to prosecute private individuals for infringing upon others’ right to bear arms. It only prevents the federal government from enacting laws that would violate this right. If individuals felt their rights to bear arms were being violated by private actors or by state laws, they could not seek federal remedies under the Second Amendment. Instead, such issues would need to be addressed through state laws and state courts.

The decision in United States v. Cruikshank highlighted the distinction between federal and state authority concerning the Second Amendment. It reinforced that the right to bear arms, as outlined in the Second Amendment, was a restriction on federal power but did not extend to the states or to actions by private individuals. This ruling gave states the authority to regulate firearms as they saw fit, including imposing restrictions on gun ownership. This interpretation persisted for much of U.S. history until later cases, such as McDonald v. Chicago (2010), applied the Second Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.