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 South Carolina, as in the rest of the United States, the Second Amendment is recognized as providing a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. This interpretation has been reinforced by landmark Supreme Court decisions such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which affirmed the individual's right to possess firearms unconnected with service in a militia, and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), which extended this protection to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, both federal and state laws in South Carolina must comply with this individual rights interpretation. South Carolina state statutes regulate the possession, carrying, and use of firearms, including requiring background checks for gun purchases from licensed dealers and issuing permits for concealed carry. However, these regulations must not infringe upon the fundamental right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment and interpreted by the courts. The debate between the individual rights and collective rights theories of the Second Amendment continues in academic and legal circles, but current jurisprudence favors the individual rights perspective.