constitutional-law second-amendment
Are gun manuals protected under the second amendment?
<p>My understanding of the second amendment is that it covers a wide class of weapons such as knives in addition to firearms.</p>
<p>My question is given that gun manuals inform individuals on how to operate firearms, and thus elevates an individual's ability to protect themselves, does this elevate it to the status of a second amendment protected property?</p>
<p>As a side note, I am aware that gun manuals would likely already be covered by the first amendment, making them legal regardless. I am asking specifically about their protection status under the second amendment.</p>

<p>One can only be certain when a case is decided by SCOTUS, and so far, no law has attempted to ban the publication of manuals for firearms.
<a href="https://casetext.com/case/jackson-v-city-of-sf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Jackson v. City of S.F.</a>, 746 F.3d 953 gives good reason to think that the court would find such a ban unconstitutional. There is an analogous line of thinking regarding ammunition regulations, where some municipalities took the position that ammunition is not &quot;arms&quot; and therefore is not protected, since the amendment does not explicitly say &quot;and ammunition&quot;. The Jackson court comments that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A regulation eliminating a person's ability to obtain or use
ammunition could thereby make it impossible to use firearms for their
core purpose</p>
</blockquote>
<p>referring to <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Heller</a>, and SCOTUS's finding that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the  Second   Amendment  protects  an  individual’s  right  to
possess  firearms  and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as
well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept
nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Jackson court</p>
<blockquote>
<p>conclude[s] that prohibitions on the sale of ammunition do not fall
outside “the historical understanding of the scope of the [Second
Amendment] right.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The reasoning that brings ammunition within the scope of Second Amendment protection applies equally well to e.g. ammo cases, gun oil, cleaning brushes, and instruction manuals, all of which are necessary to the lawful exercise of one's Second Amendment rights. See also <a href="https://casetext.com/case/ezell-v-city-of-chicago#p708" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ezell v. Chicago</a>, 651 F.3d 684 which holds that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the right to possess firearms &quot;implies a corresponding right to
acquire and maintain proficiency in their use&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>and thus a ban on firing ranges violates the Second Amendment.</p>

<p>The key case on gun rights is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>District of Columbia v. Heller</em>, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)</a> Looking at both the Wikipedia article and <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the actual opinion</a> There seems to be no mention of manuals, instructions or other documents.</p>
<p>The Wikipedia article lists the &quot;Issues addressed by the majority&quot; as:</p>
<ul>
<li>the &quot;people&quot; to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same &quot;people&quot; who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection;
*The historical background of the Second Amendment;</li>
<li>The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes;</li>
<li>self-defense is a purpose of the Second Amendment;</li>
<li>a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional;</li>
<li>the District must permit [Heller] to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home;</li>
<li>the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home.</li>
<li>longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are not inconsistent with the Second Amendment</li>
</ul>
<p>I find no later case in which possession or publication of manuals or instructions for guns is declared to be protected by the Second Amendment. It would be hard to frame a law (in the US) which prohibited or drastically regulated such manuals without falling afoul of the First Amendment, and I have found no instance in which Congress or any state legislature attempted to ban such manuals. There would thus have been no occasion for any court ruling on any Second Amendment protected accorded to such manuals. On its face, the Amendment offers no such protection.</p>
<p>Unlike ammunition, which is essential to the use of a gun as a gun, and which was held top be protected in  <em>Jackson v. City of S.F.</em>, 746 F.3d 953 a manual is not &quot;essential&quot; to such use, as there ae other ways of learning how to operate a gun. But for a particular person, a manual might be the only practical way of learning how to use a particular gun. If squarely faced with such a situation, a court might rule a pan on publishing or possessing gun manuals to be a violation of the Second Amendment, as well as of the First. A law providing &quot;reasonable regulations&quot; might well be a different matter.</p>
