U.S. courts have heard numerous cases in which individuals have cited the Second Amendment to defend their right to bear firearms. Time and again the courts have interpreted the amendment to protect only the rights of citizens who are serving as part of an organized militia. Reading the amendment clearly supports this interpretation: "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." The Second Amendment, by its own terms, relates to the militia; it is only because a "well regulated militia" is necessary that the amendment exists at all. Since the purpose of the amendment was to protect the States from the Federal Government, does this preclude Congress from regulating firearms? According to Cody v. United States, a Court of Appeals case from 1972, "it has been settled that the Second Amendment is not an absolute bar to Congressional regulation of the use or possession of firearms." The only U.S. Supreme Court case that directly addresses the rights granted by the Second Amendment is U.S. v. Miller (1939). In its decision the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment does not grant the right to bear arms that do not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Court decisions have persistently held that there is no constitutional right for an individual to bear arms. If the National Rifle Association wants to change this interpretation of the Second Amendment, it either should attempt to amend the Constitution or bring a new case in hope of persuading the courts to reverse more than 150 years of legal precedent.