The Second Amendment in 1776 and Now - Essay Example

The Second Amendment in 1776 and Now The U.S Constitution has undergone several amendments over time to meet some targetsand solve emerging issues. One of the amendments is the Second Amendment that states, “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” (Baron 1). The Amendment has created a lot of controversy with regard to the debate on the issue of gun control. According to proponents for stricter gun control, the amendment seeks to protect the rights of States to uphold militia groups. However, the opponents of the regulations respond by asserting that the aim of the amendment was to guard an individual right (Barnett 2). English common law has recognized the significance of proper arms control for a long time. The founding fathers believed that citizens have a right to own arms when working in the militia. Such right ensures the presence of maximum protection and security since people can defend themselves whenever need arises (Cornell 10). The Supreme Court of the US has upheld the amendment in its three decisions in the years 1876, 1886 as well as in 1939. Therefore, the founding fathers advocated for collective rights interpretation whereby people were allowed to own arms only when in a group such as the militia but not individuals. The founding fathers had in mind the dangers of permitting individual citizens to purchase and own guns in the society. According to them, such permission would promote weapon related violence, and thereby make the society an unsafe place to live in. This collective right interpretation had prevailed in America for over a century, and therefore, it had been recognized and used in three Supreme Court rulings (Cornell 15). However, this meaning remained no-contentious until in 1960 when an additional individual right to bear arms for self-defense was recognized. Therefore, the assertion of the individual right has made Americans to currently consider that the Second Amendment warrants their right to own a gun (Charles 27). The individual rights model has either undercut or blocked passage of laws that regulate purchase and use of guns over the last twenty years. For instance, the assault weapons prohibition of 1994 was permitted to expire after ten years due to intense pressure from gun rights activists and organizations (Doherty 31). Even though the gun’s lobby persistence that the long common laws and traditions have existed supporting an individual’s right to own and use weapons, the English law has regulated guns from the 14th century (Gonzales 45). This is because of the existence of Game Laws that restricted ownership of weapons only to the wealthy people who had substantial income and owned huge lands (Baron 3). Therefore, the middle class as well as peasants were not permitted to own or use weapons such as guns. Currently, gun lobbyists argue that the English Bill of Rights presented to the monarchs by the House of Commons in 1689 guaranteed everyone to own and use weapons (Anderson and Horwitz 35). However, the law restricted the ownership to Protestants who were of the right social class. Further, the Bill of Rights acknowledged the need for the law to regulate weapons. In this regard, the Bill of Rights does not recognize ownership and use of weapons among the middle class as well as the common citizens (Labunski 53). The privilege to possess and use weapons—more so, guns—was left to the wealthy people in the society. In Britain, the law on gun control has been maintained while in the US, there has been growing resistance to regulation of possession and use of guns. The most recent case occurred in March 2007, when the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recognized the individual rights model (Smith 36). It decided that the ban on handguns since 1976 in Washington D.C. has been in violation of the Second Amendment that guarantees the right of an individual to own and use guns. According to the court, the Second Amendment did not vividly associate gun ownership and use with the militia service. Citing majority opinion in ruling the case, the presiding judge, Judge Silberman asserted that the first clause within the amendment referred to as the “militia clause” was just prefatory and, therefore, lacked importance with regard to the amendment’s functioning second clause (Maer and Gay 54). Therefore, the first clause was not as significant as the second clause which recognized individual’s right to bear and use weapons. The operative clause, therefore, hindered Washington City from implementing ban on the use of handguns. The decision by the court to dismiss the first section of the Second Amendment as perambulatory proved that the founding fathers of the 18th century never saw it from that perspective (Finkelman 267). Moreover, the court’s interpretation of the meanings of the word “militia” as well as the phrase “bear arms,” to support their case, shows a great disparity from the interpretation held by the federal government in early years and at present (“Founding Fathers” 2). The ruling permitting a lift on the ban on the citizens to bear and use weapons, and especially handguns, promoted purchase and use of guns within Washington City, thereby hindering effort to fight and curb weapon related violence. Thus, the ruling promoted gun related violence, which resulted into much injuries and deaths among the citizens. However, Washington D.C. appealed against the decision within the U.S Supreme Court. The court granted certiorari as well as heard oral arguments contained in the case, thereby renaming it District of Columbia v. Heller, on March 18, 2007 (Baron 3). Nonetheless, the court will issue its ruling on the matter before the end of its current term. The District had to seek for support from various groups and organizations such as the City of Chicago, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, legislators, the American Bar Association among others in support of the appeal. The ruling of the lower court, therefore, had massive impact on the lifestyle of the citizens of Washington City. For that reason, there is need for its reversal. First, the court’s ruling was based on the second part, yet the Second Amendment was supposed to be read in entirety (Halbrook 43). The court disregarded the first part and recognized the second part as the most important, thereby allowing ordinary citizens to purchase and use weapons, especially handguns. Since the first section of the amendment is connected syntactically and semantically to the second part, the court should reconsider its view on the amendment (Baron 3). According to the court, the purpose of the second comma is to divide the amendment into two parts. Therefore, the first part becomes prefatory while the second section entails the operative (Tushnet 57). Even though the second comma separates the sentence syntactically, it is not certain that it is used to separate the unimportant section from important section both at present and in the 18th century (Baron 3). Thus, separating the two components of the amendment amounts to bias judgment and ruling. Moreover, the court should consider that the first section of the amendment denotes the purpose of the second; therefore, the right to own and keep arms is directly connected to the requirement of a proper regulated militia. In addition, in the 18th century, the phrase “bear arms” had a customary as well as traditional meaning attached to military contexts (Tushnet 57). The meaning was never in the contexts of self-defense or hunting. Therefore, the interpretation of the Second Amendment should be considered as per the context of the 18th century since it was the belief of the founding fathers. To regulate the use of weapons like guns, the founding fathers’ belief should be considered since they were the drafters of the amendment. Finally, in the interpretation of the Second Amendment, the word “militia” needs to be considered as it was in the federal period (Whitney 78). In the federal period, the word referred to an organized and properly trained group of citizen soldiers. The term also referred to people who are eligible to serve in the organized group and therefore can provide security to the state as well as to the citizens. Thus, the term does not recognize anybody or the fact that all Americans can possess and use weapons (Winkler 12). This is because during that time, the majority of Americans were not allowed to join militia service as they were regarded as subjects to the British colonists. Consequently, the interpretation of the phrases “bears arms” and “well-regulated militia” has resulted into heated debate on the right of individuals to own and use firearms in the US (Labunski 55). Since both the American jurisprudence as well as the British law acknowledged the need to regulate the use of weapons by the public, there is little chance that the Court will quash all handgun control regulations (Smith 42). However, since the incidences of gun related violence has been on the rise, there should be stricter regulations on gun ownership and use. For instance, the incident of U.S. school shooting which left 26 people killed, among them 20 schoolchildren, is so touchy (Baron 8). The incident, which occurred in the state of Connecticut, had a gunman opening fire and killing 20 primary school children on the spot. This incident occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School located in Newton. The gunman who was a youth in his twenties was also among the deceased. It was the deadliest incident that has ever occurred in US history (Baron 9). The event is just but an example of the gun related violence that calls for the regulation of gun ownership and use. In case there had been stricter regulations on gun use and regulations, the incident might not have occurred. Therefore, even though the final version of the Second Amendment recognizes the relationship between a well-regulated militia and arms, it does not state that arms should be owned for self-defense or for killing of game. Following the U.S. school shooting incident, I look forward to enactment of more laws regulating possession and use of guns. Enactment and enforcement of such laws will reduce weapon related violence and thus make the society safer. Works Cited Anderson, Casey, and Joshua Horwitz. Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2009. Print. Baron, Dennis. “Guns and Grammar: the Linguistics of the Second Amendment.” University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. University of Illinois Board of Trustees, n.d. Web. 25 April 2013. Barnett, Gary E. "The Reasonable Regulation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms". The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy 6.2 (24 June 2008). Print. Charles, Patrick J. The Second Amendment: The Intent and Its Interpretation by the States and the Supreme Court. Jefferson, N.C: McFarland & Co, 2009. Print. Cornell, Saul. A Well-Regulated Militia — The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York, 2006. Print. Doherty, Brian. Gun Control on Trial: Inside the Supreme Court Battle Over the Second Amendment. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 2008. Print. Finkelman, Paul. “It Really Was About a Well Regulated Militia.” Syracuse Law Review, 59 (2008): 267. Print. "Founding Fathers: Virginia". FindLaw Constitutional Law Center. FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business, n.d. Web. 25 April 2013. Gonzales, Doreen. A Look at the Second Amendment: To Keep and Bear Arms. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Publishers, 2008. Print. Halbrook, Stephen P. The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms. Chicago, IL: Ivan R. Dee, 2012. Print. Labunski, Richard, E. James Madison and the struggle for the Bill of Rights. Oxford University Press US, 2006. Print. Maer, Lucinda, and Oonagh Gay. "The Bill of Rights 1689". Parliament and Constitution Centre. Parliament, 9 Oct. 2009. Web. 25 April 2013. < http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-00293.pdf> Smith, Douglas G. "The Second Amendment and the Supreme Court". The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy 6 (Summer 2008). Print. Tushnet, Mark. V. Out of Range: Why the Constitution Can't End the Battle Over Guns. Oxford University Press, 2007. Print. Whitney, Craig R. Living with Guns: A Liberal's Case for the Second Amendment. New York: Public Affairs, 2012. Print. Winkler, Adam. "Scrutinizing the Second Amendment". Michigan Law Review, 105 (February 2007). Print. Read More