The Second Amendment to the US Constitution and the Bearing of Arms - Coursework Example

Name of the Student] [Name of the Professor] [Name of the Course] [Date] The Second Amendment to the US Constitution and the Bearing of Arms The Second Amendment 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’. In 1903, Congress passed several acts to help states to develop their own militias. These acts were aimed at providing funding and other resources to organize state militias. The Federal Government formed the National Guard, and the states provided armouries and storage facilities. It was up to the federal funds to provide clothing, weapons and equipment. The training of the militia is supervised by the Army and the Air Force (Roleff). As no State of the Union, enjoins upon its denizens to provide its militia with firearms, the ownership of weapons by individuals has no relevance to the existence of a competent militia. The Amendments proposed to the US Constitution, in 1789, were significantly less articulate than the bill of rights of the individual states. The state bills of rights had been replete with supplications to natural rights and first principles. This was conspicuous by its absence in these Amendments, and there were just a few sparse directions. It had been presumed that the populace was thoroughly cognizant with the ultimate source and moral objectives of their rights (Rakove 192). An exception to this general state of affairs, in respect of the Constitutional Amendments, was to be seen in the Second Amendment, which comprised of a preamble that described its aim, namely, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” There is a very important reference in the Second Amendment; specifically, the advantages provided by a well regulated militia. This indication has been glossed over by the modern proponents of this Amendment; because, it implies that citizens do not have the constitutional right to stock weapons, like machine guns, howitzers and battle tanks, in their homes (Rakove 192). The right to bear guns, which can be treated as the right to private property, cannot be an absolute right. Fundamentally, the right of any individual to own, bear or use firearms has to be offset against the right of any person to safety, and the social requirements of society. Moreover, there are some types of weapons, whose mere possession is harmful to society. The Second Amendment to the Constitution came into being, when the nation was in its infancy. The present large scale violence could not have been anticipated by the framers of the Bill of Rights (Warfel). At present, the US is experiencing a culture of violence. The homicide rate in the US, on account of guns is higher than that of the other wealthy countries. Similarly, the rate of suicides committed with guns is higher in the US than the other developed countries. Although, it could be contended that guns are indispensable for protecting oneself and one’s family; the proliferation of firearms, allows criminals and mentally ill people to cause irreversible harm (Warfel). Although, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms; it does not prevent the enactment of stringent gun control legislation. The advocates of gun rights function in a manner that does not conform to the spirit of the Second Amendment. This manner of thinking came into existence, during the 19th century, when several states, commenced to enact gun control laws, in order to deal with the various problems that were coming to the fore, due to hand guns (Cornell). The proponents of gun control have quoted the decision in the Miller case, in order to assert that the state and Federal governments are empowered to control the sale, possession and use of firearms. Thus, the Second Amendment does not empower individuals; unless there is some relationship to a state militia, to possess firearms. Despite the fact that seven decades have passed, since the time of the Miller decision; the Supreme Court has not changed its stance, in respect of the Constitutionality of state and Federal governments to enact legislation that restricts the possession of firearms (Second Amendment ). In the Miller case, the US Supreme Court ruled on a number of issues that were related to the Second Amendment. In this case two individuals had been charged with violating the provisions of the 1934 National Firearms Act. This Court ruled that the Federal Government had not acted ultra vires, in attempting to enact gun control laws (United States v. Jack Miller, et al). The Court went on to opine that the Congress had been empowered by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to control interstate commerce involving firearms. In relation to the Second Amendment the Supreme Court ruled that the possession of firearms was to be reasonably associated with either the efficient functioning of well regulated militia or its conservation. If this does not hold good, then it would be erroneous and misleading to assume that the Second Amendment bestows upon an individual, the right to possess and bear firearms (Second Amendment ). The US Supreme Court had opined that the objective of the Second Amendment was to strengthen the National Guard or the state militia. It also declared that the Constitution had not extended the right to bear arms to every individual in the US. The fundamental objective of the right to bear arms was to maintain an effective state militia (Blek). Moreover, the appellate courts are in agreement that the Second Amendment does not guarantee any absolute right to own or to bear arms, by individuals. With the decision in the Miller case, the Supreme Court has clarified that a firearms statute is in violation of the Constitution, only if it has an adverse effect on that state’s capacity to maintain a militia (Blek). The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, extended federal control over the licenses provided for firearms and required the purchasers of handguns to wait for five clear days, before being allowed to actually take possession of the firearm. There had been a significant increase in violence, entailing firearms (gun control). Moreover, the Harvard University published the results of a research study conducted by it, which disclosed that as of July 1999, there were at least 190, 000 students, in colleges and universities, who owned handguns. What was truly disturbing was the escalation of gun violence in schools. For instance, in the period 1996 to 2001, around 16 incidents of shooting were reported. These incidents were responsible for the death of 17 teachers and 35 students, in addition to causing grievous injuries to 70 individuals (gun control). In the year 1934, Congress enacted the first major gun control legislation. This legislation controlled the sale of machine guns and other fully automatic weapons. Subsequently, in the year 1938, a federal law was passed, which make it compulsory for the sellers of guns to possess a license. This law disallowed criminals, who had been convicted of violent crime from procuring firearms (Gun Control Policy Issues). After a considerable gap, Congress enacted the Gun Control Act, in 1968, which regulated imported firearms, enhanced the requirements for obtaining a license for gun dealership. This statute, included individual convicted for non – economic offenses, minors, mentally incompetent persons, and drug addicts in the list of those who were precluded from purchasing firearms (Gun Control Policy Issues). In the year 1986, compulsory punishments for employing firearms, whilst committing federal crimes, were introduced. Moreover, bullets that had the capacity to penetrate bulletproof vests were proscribed. Furthermore, in the year 1990, laws were enacted that prohibited the import of semi – automatic assault weapons (Gun Control Policy Issues). The decisions in several cases have established the necessity for statutory regulation, in respect of the ownership and use of firearms by individuals. For instance, in Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, the Appellate Court opined that the US Constitution did not empower an individual to bear arms, in the absence of “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” (Eckert v. City of Philadelphia). Furthermore, in Stevens v. United States, the court ruled that Congress was empowered to enact legislation that would prevent a felon from bearing arms. Inter alia, it also confirmed that there was no express constitutional right that enabled an individual to possess a firearm (Stevens v. United States). In Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, a local law, namely, Ordinance No. 81 – 11, prohibited the possession, within the village. This was challenged by Quilici, in the state court. This case was transferred to the federal court, and was combined with two other analogous actions. These plaintiffs contended that this Ordinance breached the Second Amendment, in addition to other Amendments to the US Constitution and articles of the Illinois Constitution (Quilici v. The Village of Morton Grove). The court ruled that Morton Grove was well within its rights to proscribe the possession of handguns, inside the territory of the village. Quilici approached the US Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case. Moreover, the latter directed that the lower court was to decide on this case. With this case it was established that legislation that prevented the possession of arms could be enacted (Quilici v. The Village of Morton Grove). According to a 2006 report, the homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 persons, in the year 2005. In the Midwest, this rate had increased by 5.8 percent over the homicide rate for 2004. Moreover, in the South, it had increased by 5.3%. The victims of violent crime were chiefly males, Afro – Americans and youth under the age of 24 years. This report also disclosed that around 24 % of the total violent crimes were perpetrated by armed criminals. The rate of firearm violence had increased from 1.4 individuals per 100,000 in 2004, to 2.0 per 100, 000 in 2005 (Roche). As of 2005, persons above the age of 12 were victims of firearms violence and property crimes, in the United States of America. The most disturbing aspect is that more than half of these crimes are never brought to the notice of the concerned authorities. Thus, firearms are increasingly being used in violent crime, and the also constitute the principal cause for the increase in violent crime (Roche). The assumption that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right has grave consequences. Criminals, terrorists and mentally imbalanced persons have easy access to firearms. This has caused innumerable deaths in the US. Moreover, even the school children are easily able to procure firearms, and use them to kill teachers and fellow students. The right to bear arms, as clarified by the US Supreme Court, via its case law, was principally to aid in the maintenance of a well regulated militia. This all important condition has been relegated to the background, by those who obstinately insist upon less stringent gun control laws. In this day and age, where the security of the nation is accorded a very high priority, the possession of firearms by individuals is unnecessary. Such bearing of firearms has proved to be a grave menace to society at large. Works Cited Blek, Charles L., Jr. "Gun Control Is Constitutional." 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center, Gale. 18 November 2009 . Cornell, Saul. "The Second Amendment Is Misused by Opponents of Gun Control." 2009. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. 18 November 2009 . Eckert v. City of Philadelphia. No. 477 F.2d 610. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. 2 May 1973. "gun control." 2009. The Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia with Atlas and Weather guide. 18 November 2009 . Gun Control Policy Issues. October 2009. 18 November 2009 . Quilici v. The Village of Morton Grove. No. 695 F.2d 261. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. 10 December 1982. Rakove, Jack N. Declaring rights: a brief history with documents. Palgrave Macmillan, 1998. Roche, Walter F. "The Number of Crimes Committed with Guns Is Increasing in the United States." 2009. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center, Gale. 18 November 2009 . Roleff, Tamara L. "Private Gun Ownership Is Not Protected by the Second Amendment." 1997. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center, Gale. 18 November 2009 . "Second Amendment ." 2002. World of Criminal Justice, Gale. Farmington: Gale Credo Reference . 18 November 2009 . Stevens v. United States. No. 440 F.2d 144 . United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. 22 March 1971. United States v. Jack Miller, et al. No. 307 U.S. 174. Supreme Court of the United States. 15 May 1939. Warfel, Michael W. "The Second Amendment Is Not Absolute." 2002. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center, Gale. 18 November 2009 . Read More