By the Second Amendment it is provided that "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."

In Presser v. Illinois22 was questioned the constitutionality of a section of the military code of a State forbidding bodies of men to associate together or parade or drill with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law. The court, however, held that so far as the Second Amendment to the federal Constitution was concerned, there was no objection to this provision for the reason that the amendment, like the other of the first eight amendments, applies only to the Federal Government. But it was, however, also objected that the statute was inconsistent with, or at least that it attempted to cover ground already covered by, congressional legislation with reference to the organization and control of the federal militia. As to this the court said: "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and, in view of this prerogative of the Federal Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government. But ... we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect."23

22 116 U. S. 252; 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580; 29 L. ed. 615.

23 It was also argued that the sections of the state law in question were in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, in that they deprived persons of the enjoyment of a privilege or immunity belonging to them as citizens of the United States. To this the court replied: "We have not been referred to any statute of the United States which confers upon the plaintiff in error the privilege which he asserts. The only clause in the Constitution which, upon any pretense, could be said to have any relation whatever to his right to associate with others as a military company, is found in the First Amendment, which declares that 'Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without and independent of an Act of Congress or law of the State authorizing the same is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and contro1 of the State and Federal Governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The Constitution and laws of United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject. It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit associations and meetings of the institution or fact of slavery or involuntary servitude, and the enforcement clause, therefore, gives to the General Government the power to punish the individual or individuals, whether private persons or state officials who hold, or attempt to hold, anyone in slavery or involuntary servitude.