Muscarello v. United States

The decision was a rare ruling addressing Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms Clause. By affirming the courts' broad interpretation of firearms restrictions in two criminal cases, the Court strengthened the effectiveness of law enforcement in drug offenses. By the end of the 1990s, local and state governments were forming a united effort in passing more gun-control legislation and addressing the liability of firearms manufacturers and distributors in courts.

Despite extensive debate and legislative action regarding the regulation of firearm use since 1934, little has been resolved concerning the actual meaning of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The amendment reads, "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." Some claimed the amendment protects individual rights to possess and transport guns. Others insisted it protected states' authority to maintain militia units which became the National Guard in later years. The Court in United States v. Miller (1939) ruled the amendment protected individuals, but only in the context of maintaining a militia capability for the state. The Court ruled in Miller that restrictions on sawed-off shotguns did not violate the Second Amendment because they are not the normal type of weapon a militia would need to be effective. The Court found no individual right to bear arms.

By the 1990s according to Department of Justice records over 40 percent of Americans had guns in their homes. Also, over 20,000 federal, state, and local laws regulating firearms were passed under police and commerce governmental powers. Passage of the 1993 Brady Act and 1994 assault weapons ban added further fuel to an already fierce debate over gun control. Then in a stunning reversal from earlier interpretations of broad federal powers under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, the Court struck down a firearms-related law in United States v. Lopez (1995). For similar concerns over the limitation of federal authority, the Court next struck down key provisions of the Brady Act in Printz v. United States (1997).