Answer:
Explanation:
The Supreme Court's rulings on the Second Amendment have generally been in favour of individual liberty and the right to bear arms. In the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for self-defence within the home. The Court struck down a District of Columbia law that banned handguns and required that any lawfully-owned firearm be kept disassembled or locked up.
The Court's decision in Heller was reaffirmed in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), where the Court held that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court struck down a Chicago law that banned the possession of handguns by most residents.
These rulings have been in favour of individual liberty because they have recognized that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms, rather than a collective right that applies only to members of a militia. The Court has emphasized that this right is fundamental to the nation's system of ordered liberty and is necessary for the protection of individual self-defence.
However, the Court has also recognized that this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable regulation. For example, in Heller, the Court noted that laws prohibiting felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms, are examples of permissible regulations.