The Supreme Court has evolved in its interpretation of the Second Amendment, particularly in its rulings in recent decades.
The most significant shift occurred with the landmark 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, where the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. This was a notable departure from earlier interpretations that emphasized the collective right tied to militia service.
In the 2010 case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court further extended this individual right interpretation by ruling that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, not just federal jurisdictions.
However, while the Court established an individual right to bear arms, it has also upheld certain regulations and limitations, indicating that the rights of gun owners are not unlimited. For example, in cases related to restrictions on types of weapons, the Court has acknowledged that some regulations, such as background checks and licensing requirements for concealed carry, can be constitutional.
In summary, the Supreme Court has made significant changes in its interpretation of the Second Amendment, moving from a collective rights view focused on militias to a strong emphasis on individual rights, while also recognizing the government's ability to impose certain regulations on that right.