Presser v. Illinois
Presser v. Illinois is a significant Supreme Court case from 1886 that addressed the scope of the Second Amendment in relation to state authority. The case arose when Herman Presser was convicted for leading a parade of armed members of a fraternal organization, leading him to argue that the Illinois law under which he was convicted violated his rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision written by Justice William B. Woods, concluded that the Second Amendment only restricts the federal government and does not apply to the states. Furthermore, the Court indicated that the law in question did not appear to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, suggesting that states could enact regulations to ensure public safety. This ruling established a precedent that has influenced discussions regarding the relationship between state laws and the Second Amendment, particularly concerning the regulation of firearms. Presser v. Illinois remains a foundational case in the ongoing debate about gun rights and state regulations in the United States.
Presser v. Illinois
Date: January 4, 1886
Citation: 116 U.S. 252
Issues: Incorporation doctrine; right to bear arms
Significance: The Supreme Court upheld an Illinois law that prohibited parading with arms by any groups other than the organized militia.
After Herman Presser was convicted for leading a parade of armed members of a fraternal organization, he asserted that the law violated the rights protected by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice William B. Woods held that the Second Amendment applied only to the federal government and not to the states. Woods also suggested in dicta (in an individual, nonbinding opinion) that the regulation in question did not appear to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Presser was never reversed. If the Court were to make the Second Amendment binding on the states, it is highly unlikely that this would preclude the states from making reasonable regulations to protect the public safety.
