The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides for the right to keep and bear arms, and 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 people believe this language creates a Constitutional, individual right for citizens of the United States to keep and bear arms, and prohibits Congress and state legislatures from prohibiting or restricting the possession of firearms.

Others believe the beginning words ("A well regulated militia being necessary”) indicate the intent of the Amendment was only to restrict Congress from limiting a state’s right to self-defense. This collective rights theory of the Second Amendment holds that citizens do not have an individual right to possess firearms, and that federal, state, and local legislative bodies may regulate the possession of firearms without implicating a Constitutional right.

At the time the First Amendment was ratified, some militia members used their own weapons, and some used weapons from their state’s militia stores.

In Iowa, the right to keep and bear arms is protected under both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and the state constitution. The Second Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to confer an individual right to possess firearms, as established in landmark cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). These decisions have clarified that individuals have a right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that this right is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Iowa's state constitution also provides for the right to bear arms in Article I, Section 6, which states that 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' However, both federal and state laws can impose certain restrictions on firearm possession and use, such as background checks, waiting periods, and prohibitions on possession by certain individuals. The debate over the collective versus individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment continues, but current legal precedent supports the individual rights view.