A litigant argues the Second Amendment protects only militia service, not personal self-defense; which case rejects that view?
- McDonald v. Chicago rejected an individual right and held the Second Amendment protects only organized militia activity regulated by the states.
- D.C. v. Heller rejected the purely collective-right view and held the Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense at home. (correct answer)
- Heller held the right exists only when a person is actively serving in the National Guard, so self-defense is not constitutionally protected.
- McDonald held the right is created by state constitutions, not the federal Constitution, so federal courts cannot recognize individual self-defense claims.
- Heller held any firearm regulation is invalid, so the collective-versus-individual debate is irrelevant because all laws must be struck down.
Explanation: This question directly addresses the central holding of D.C. v. Heller regarding individual versus collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. Heller definitively rejected the view that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right tied to militia service. Instead, the Court held that the Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, particularly for self-defense in the home, unconnected to militia service. Option B correctly identifies this fundamental shift in constitutional interpretation. Option A confuses McDonald with Heller and misstates the holding. Option C contradicts Heller's individual rights recognition. Option D mischaracterizes the source of the right. Option E incorrectly suggests the right is absolute.