Bill of Rights: 2nd Amendment - Essay Example

Bill of Rights: 2nd Amendment According to statistics from firearm manufacturers, American civilians owned close to 300 million firearms in 2010 (Just Facts, par. 4). The debate on whether or not individual American civilians have a right to bear firearms has been raging ever since the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Amendment which states that, “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” specifically relates to the right to bear arms (National Constitution Center par. 1). Arms in this case include any kind of firearms (handguns, rifles, and shotgun among others). The Second Amendment, as intended by the founding fathers, gives individuals the constitutional right to bear arms although the state reserves the mandate to regulate their ownership and use. This paper will analyze the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in light of its history and controversial nature. History of Amendment Two of the Constitution Although the Second Amendment was ratified in December 1791, it was passed by Congress on September 25, 1789 (National Constitution Center par. 1). The history of the Second Amendment to the American Constitution traces its roots to the English law which held that people have natural rights to defend themselves against aggression. Before the American Revolution English Settlers in America held the view that the right to bear arms or state militia was important for several reasons. Some of the reasons that that they assigned to bearing arms included: to repel invasion; to facilitate self-defense; for law enforcement; to suppress insurrection; to prevent tyrannical government; and to enable the organization of a militia system (Adams 47). This was indeed the case in the different states that today make up the United States as evidenced by their individual constitutions. For example, the Constitution of Pennsylvania expressly stated that the people have a right to arms for which they can use to defend the state or themselves. Before the American Revolution took place, colonists who pledged their allegiance to the British government bore arms, forming a colonial militia (Adams 82). However, with the passage of time some colonists developed mistrust for the British government and by extension, distrust toward those who were loyal to it. The colonists who favored independence from British rule established colonial legislatures that were free of the control of the British government. They used these legislatures to establish their own militias and sought to stockpile arms for their self defense and the defense of their colonies. This move displeased the British Parliament which responded by imposing a ban on ammunition, firearms and firearm parts on the colonies in America. The Loyalists’ attempts to disarm the Patriots were met with resistance, the former citing their rights to self defense as enshrined in English common law. During the Revolution, the continental army, militia groups, and regular French forces fought and won the battle against loyalist militia, the British Army, and other mercenaries that favored British rule in America. The colonists appreciated the fact that the only way they and citizens could effectively protect themselves from aggression and tyrannical governance was by establishing a militia that would be dedicated to protecting their freedom (score.rims.k12.ca.us, par. 1). To this end, the colonists included the Second Amendment in the constitution allowing every able bodied man to form part of a well regulated militia as noted by Cornell (76). Controversies Surrounding the Second Amendment Statistics indicate that during the 70s, the average household gun ownership rate in America stood at 50% according to Tavernise and Gebeloff (par. 4). This rate has been on a steady decline over the years. In the 80s and 90s, the rate stood at 49% and 43% respectively. In 2012, statistics show that on average 34% of American households held at least one firearm (Tavernise and Gebeloff par. 4). Arguably, the steady decline in gun ownership over the last several decades has been prompted by the controversy that surrounds the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The main debate about Amendment Two relates to whether or not individuals have a right to buy and use guns like militia. Many Americans believe that the Amendment gives individual citizens the right to buy and use arms as stated in the constitution. Their argument to this effect is that the government is the enemy from which they have to constantly protect themselves (score.rims.k12.ca.us, par. 2). Others believe that the constitution gives individuals the right to bear arms for self defense. Yet again, other nationals believe that if individuals are outlawed from bearing arms, it is the outlaws who will have them. Not All Americans believe that they have a right to bear arms. Some argue that the level of violent crimes in the country is high because the number of guns that civilians hold is too high (score.rims.k12.ca.us, par. 2). While civilians have their views on whether or not they have a right to buy and use firearms, legal experts and courts of law have their own perspectives in relation to the Second Amendment. Legal experts note that there are three different interpretations that can be assigned to Amendment Two of the Bill of Rights (Halbrook 43). The first interpretation focuses on individual rights and holds that bearing arms is as much an individual right as freedom of speech. The Second interpretation which gives a focus on civilian militia holds that the militia system which the Amendment was designed to protect no longer exists to the extent that the amendment is invalid. The third interpretation which seeks to mediate the first two interpretations on its part maintains that the individual’s right to bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment but is limited to some extent by the use of militia language. Given the different opinions that experts have in regard to the Second Amendment, the interests that citizens of America have in regard to their personal safety, and the government’s move at regulating firearms, courts have to give their opinions if only to quell the raging debate. In the United States of America, the Supreme Court is the court of last resort and its interpretation of any law is final. The Supreme Court, in Houston v. Moore (1820), noted that if African Americans were deemed to be citizens of the United States, then they had the right to carry and keep firearms wherever they went (Pollock 45). In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), a case revolving around the Colfax massacre, the Supreme Court made the conclusion that the Bill of rights restricted not private individuals but congress and that the states have a role to play in people’s protection (Pollock 65). Further, the court noted that Amendment Two only limits the powers of the national government. What this means is that states have the power to make legislations in respect of the bearing of arms within their jurisdictions, power that the federal government does not enjoy, based on the Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court touched on the subject once again in U.S. v. Miller (1939). In its ruling, the court put its weight behind the median interpretation holding that while individuals have a right to bear arms if only the arm is intended for use as part of a citizen militia (Pollock 76). More recently, in 2008, the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) held that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to possess firearms that have no connection with militia service and to use them for lawful reasons (Pollock 54). As an example, the court cited self defense at home as lawful purpose for which individuals have a right to bear arms. For the sake of public safety, Congress has enacted several legislations to regulate the registration, receipt, possession, prohibition, and transportation of arms. This being the case, different state and federal courts has had to give their interpretations of the Second Amendment in supplement of what the Supreme Court has stated. The courts have had to consider the legislations that have been passed in regard to the purchase, transport, possession and use of firearms in the United States. In Heller v. District of Columbia (2010), the District of Columbia Circuit objected to overturning the gun control regulations that had been newly enacted by the legislature (Halbrook 84). The court held that the legislations on arms registration and prohibition of certain weapons did not go against the Second Amendment. In United States v. Hall (2009), the Fourth Circuit held that it is prohibited to possess concealed weapons without having a permit (Halbrook 93). Currently controversies that surround the Second Amendment revolve around compulsory background checks, bans on assault weapons, restrictions on the use of firearms, restrictions on the sale of firearms, and waiting times (Halbrook 102). Although the Supreme Court has previously ruled that states should not enact or enforce legislations that go against the bill of rights in line with the fourth Amendment, there are several regulations that still apply in respect of firearms in different states. In a bid to regulate the purchase of firearms in the country, the U.S. enacted the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993). The Act basically requires individuals to undergo background checks and meet certain conditions before they can purchase firearms from licensed dealers Brady, Sarah & Merrill McLoughlin 224. This act has rubbed many people the wrong way, especially in California where gun laws are tighter. In California, individuals are limited to purchasing one gun a month even as assault clips are banned. Many people note that the Act goes against their second Amendment rights by demanding that they fulfill numerous unwarranted requirements. In Puruta v. County of San Diego (2009), the plaintiffs sued the county claiming that the requirements that those with firearms be of good character and have sufficient cause for possessing the arms contravenes their second Amendment rights (Patrick par. 1). The 9th Circuit Court ruled that the county indeed infringed on the rights of citizens by making such demands of them. All said and done, it is beyond doubt that the constitution allows individuals to bear arms and the state should regulate the distribution and ownership of arms for the people’s safety. Works Cited Adams, Les. The Second Amendment Primer: A Citizens Guidebook to the History, Sources, and Authorities for the Constitutional Guarantee of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Birmingham, Alabama: Paladium Press. 1996. Print. Brady, Sarah & Merrill McLoughlin. A Good Fight. Public Affairs. Los Angeles. 2002. Print. Cornell, Saul. A Well-Regulated Militia — The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. 2006. Print. Halbrook, Stephen. That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Independent Studies in Political Economy). Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute. 1994. Print. Just Facts. Gun Control. Web. 2010. http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp National Constitution Center. Amendment II: Right to Bear Arms. 2011. Web. http://constitutioncenter.org/constitution/the-amendments/amendment-2-right-to-bear-arms Patrick, Henry. Puruta Vs. The County of San Diego – Concealed Carry Permits in California? 2014. Web. http://aegisacademy.com/community/concealed-carry-permit/ Pollock, Earl. The Supreme Court and American Democracy: Case Studies on Judicial Review and Public Policy. Greenwood. 2008. Print. score.rims.k12.ca.us. Amendment 2. 2014. Web. http://score.rims.k12.ca.us/score_lessons/bill_of_rights/media/two.htm Tavernise Sabrina & Gebeloff Robert. Share of Homes with Guns Shows 4-Decade Decline. March 9, 2013. Web. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html Read More