Prohibitions Related to Guns and Constitution - Research Paper Example

? If the second amendment protects the right to bear arms, can and federal government strictly limit access to ammunition under the constitution? 1. Introduction The recognition of rights by the law is usually considered as the only prerequisite for the full protection of these rights. However, under certain terms the limitation of these rights is regarded as necessary so that other rights are secured. Such case exists in regard to the right of US citizens to have access to ammunition. The particular issue is set under examination in this paper. Emphasis is given to the following question: can state and the federal government set limits to the access to ammunition under the constitution? Since ammunition cannot be used without guns the reference to the potential restrictions on gun possession has been unavoidable. Indeed, if such restrictions are lawful for gun possession then a similar practice could be also justified for ammunition. A problem seems to exist though in regard to the following issue: could a different treatment for the access to ammunition, as compared to the gun possession, be justified? This issue is analyzed further below trying to evaluate whether the state and the federal government have the power to intervene in such right, as the access to ammunition. 2. The potentials of state and federal government to strictly limit access to ammunition under the constitution 2.1 Prohibitions related to guns and constitution Due to the Second Amendment, gun holders in USA are secured as of their right in regard ‘to handgun possession’ (Carter 2012, p.191). Still, many states have tried to set limits in the above right ignoring the relevant provisions of the Second Amendment. In 2008 the Supreme Court had to examine the lawfulness of the prohibitions imposed by the District of Columbia in regard to the possession of handgun at home (District of Columbia v. Heller 2008). The Supreme Court ruled that such prohibitions had been a violation of the Second Amendment and for this reason they cannot be tolerated by the law (Carter 2012, p.191). On the other hand, Spitzer (2009) notes that the federal government cannot set limits to the possession of guns because of the following fact: ‘the right to possess a gun is not based on federal constitution’ (Spitzer 2009, p.193). It is rather a right that is depended on the legislation applied locally, i.e. in each state (Spitzer 2009). At this point the role of the Second Amendment can be described as follows: the Second Amendment aims to secure the citizen’s right to possess guns, as this right is recognized by local legislation; therefore, no conflict exists between the Federal constitution and the Second Amendment (Spitzer 2009). However, no limitation seems to exist in regard to the potential of a state to set limits to gun possession. Indeed, as noted in Rohrbaugh v State of West Virginia, the limitations set by the state in regard to gun possession can be considered as justified since the state has acted for protecting its citizens; in this context, the Court has ruled that no violation of the Second Amendment has taken place due to the limitations that the state set in gun possession (Rohrbaugh v. State of West Virginia, 2004, in Massaro 2009, p.371). Boyes-Watson (2013) explains that the key reason for the introduction of the Second Amendment has been ‘the protection of the right of the states to form militia from defense’ (p.333). In addition, Featherstone and Gardiner (1982) noted that the Second Amendment aimed to secure the power of individuals not just to protect their state but also to protect their own rights. Therefore, by its scope, the Second Amendment cannot be limited by federal government, meaning that the federal government has not the power to set limits to the possession of guns. However, the potential of the state to set limits to gun possession, ignoring the Second Amendment, has caused a series of conflicts. In the past, most states used to regulate in regard to gun possession without taking into consideration the Second Amendment (Boyes-Watson 2013). It was in 2008 that this practice stopped since the Courts, for the first time, accepted the superiority of Second Amendment over the state laws (see the District of Columbia v. Heller 2008 decision, as described above). Still, no full power was recognized to the Second Amendment to justify the gun possession; rather the Court held that the type of gun that an individual would be permitted to bear should be defined by the state considering the safety of citizens (Boyes-Watson 2013, p.333). 2.2 Is a limitation to the access to ammunition imposed by the state or the federal government acceptable? Applicability of provisions related to gun possession. In general, the right to possess ammunition seems to be of similar nature with the right to possess a gun. Indeed, no specific provision is made to the law for distinguishing between guns and ammunition. More specifically, the Second Amendment refers to the right ‘to bear arms’ (Blodget 2012, p.1) without explaining the term arms further. It is implied that ammunition is included in the term ‘arms’. However, such practice can be quite risky for public safety. For example, if an individual holds a gun that meets the requirements of the state law, in terms of lawful possession, he can use it for a massacre since there is no limitation in regard to the ammunition related to the specific gun (Blodget 2009). Despite this risk, there is no limitation in law in regard to ammunition; any potential limitation is related to the type of gun that an individual is allowed to possess (Blodget 2009). In 2012 the New York state enacted a law for setting limits to the number of bullets a gun holder can keep: a seven-round magazine has been considered as adequate for securing the potentials of individuals to self defense (Denniston 2012). The above initiative of New York state has been a first attempt to set limits to ammunition; this initiative has been related to the massacre to Connecticut school in 2012 (Denniston 2012). The above action of the New York state proved that states have the power to set limits to ammunition, as they have also power to set limits to gun possession, as analyzed earlier. Bump (2012) argues that trying to set limitations in regard to gun possession is a project with no prospects for success. It is explained that the number of guns across the country is extremely high while new guns enter the market continuously (Bump 2012). Trying to set limits to the bullets that each individual would be allowed to bear is a feasible plan that could have an important advantage: it could reduce the potential of individuals to use guns for harm others while it would not eliminate the potential of individuals to secure their self defense (Bump 2012). 3. Conclusion The review of the literature related to the Second Amendment and its relationship to state and federal law, especially in regard to arms, has led to the following assumption: the Federal government cannot set restrictions in regard to the possession of ammunition. This view is based on the following fact: the gun possession is a right based on state laws and cannot be violated by federal laws (Spitzer 2009). In addition, the Second Amendment has been introduced for securing the right of individual to bear arms but in the context set by state laws. Another important finding of the research developed for this paper is the following: currently, ammunition is protected by the Second Amendment in the same way as guns, but with an important difference: up to now, no restrictions have been set by state in regard to the volume of ammunition that an individual can hold. It was just after the massacre in Connecticut’s school in 2012 that such initiative was taken. In the above case, the relevant action was taken by the New York state and not by the federal government, a fact verifying the protection provided to ammunition, as to gun possession, by the Second Amendment. In this context, it could be argued that states can set limits to ammunition while the federal government cannot; also, the specific power of states is under the control of Second Amendment that secures the right to ‘bear arms’, as the term arms also includes ammunition, as analyzed above. References Blodget, H., 2012. “How About Banning Bullets? The Constitution Doesn't Say Anything About Those.” Dec 24, 2012. Business Insider. Available at . [Accessed at 27 December 2013] Boyes-Watson, C., 2013. Crime and Justice: Learning through Cases. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Bump, P., 2012. “No, Really, Regulate the Bullets.” Dec 16, 2012. The Atlantic. Available at . [Accessed at 27 December 2013] Carter, G., 2012. Guns in American Society. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. Denniston, L., 2012. “Constitution Check: Is a limit on the number of bullets a gun can fire unconstitutional?” Constitution Daily. Available at . [Accessed at 27 December 2013] District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 Supreme Court 2783 (2008) Featherstone, J. and Gardiner, R., 1982. “The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms.” 1982 Senate Report, pp.83-109. Massaro, J., 2009. No Guarantee of a Gun: How and Why the Second Amendment Means Exactly What It Says. London: AuthorHouse. Spitzer, R., 2009. Gun Control: A Documentary and Reference Guide. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group. Read More