Historical Interpretation, Supreme Court Cases, and Future of the Second Amendment in the U.S.
Introduction
In 2017, gun fatalities in the U.S. recorded their high degree in over four decades. The existing status quo is untenable since many gun rights organizations believe that gun limits are simply the beginning of a slippery slope that will undermine the Second Amendment’s right to bear guns for self-defense U.S. (Const. amend. XIV. §.2). Ultimately, many anti-gun violence campaigners believe that sensible public safety restrictions may thrive with the freedom to carry weapons.
For nearly two centuries, the courts interpreted the 2nd Amendment to guarantee a collective right to hold arms for state militias rather than an individual right to bear weapons. This paper explores the history and background of the Second Amendment in the United States. The research also explains the seminal Supreme Court case, gun control and regulations, and the repealing of the amendments.
Background, History, and Interpretation of the Second Amendment
The Second Amendment may be traced to the classical Roman and Florentine ages. The publications of Italian theorist Machiavelli, British scholar Harrington, and British revisionist historian Trenchard, argued the need for weapons bearing to safeguard the liberties of individuals in a republic. However, its English beginnings emerged in the mid-16th century when Queen Elizabeth first established a universal militia in which people of all classes were forced by law to participate in protecting the realm. Although Elizabeth’s endeavor to organize a state militia was unsuccessful, the militia idea was utilized as a political weapon until the mid-eighteenth century. The political argument over the organization and management of the Militia played a role in the English Civil Wars in the 1640s and the Glorious Revolution of 1689.
In England, gun regulations were seldom debated in parliament seating and motions. Due to the Glorious Revolution in England, the forerunner to the Second Amendment was enshrined in the British Rights Bill in 1688, subject to Article VII. It stated that the subjects, who are Protestants, may carry arms for their defense suited to their circumstances and as authorized by law. The right to bear arms, which was sometimes mistaken as a right to defend one’s body, house, or property, assured that Parliament might exert its legitimate freedom of self-preservation against a despotic crown by equipping eligible Protestants as a militia.
However, from the mid-seventeenth to the late-eighteenth centuries, members of Parliament advocated laws to eliminate gun limitations and enable English homeowners to own and keep weapons for the protection of the realm. Essentially, Thomas Erle, a former commander and Member of Parliament, recommended that every considerable resident in any municipality or town should be equipped with a decent gun in instances of attack.
A similar proposal that enables Protestants to maintain a weapon “for the protection of the government” was made in 1693. Such plans were deemed not very secure for administrations since they would arm the so-called rabble. The American colonies had several gun-control laws governing safety, crime, hunting, collective security, and even enslaved people. Thus, the Second Amendment was primarily inspired by the English common law Bill of Rights of 1689 and was based partly on the right to possess and carry weapons.
When establishing the Second Amendment, the founders of the United States Constitution undoubtedly had the English provision to “bear weapons” in mind. Valdez et al. affirmed that the constitutional importance of a “well-regulated Militia” is well cataloged in English and American antiquity since the late 17th century via the Revolution of America. Marietta claimed that the Amendment was stipulated in the Confederation articles of the 18th century, the country’s original Constitution. It was even mentioned at the Constitutional Congress in Philadelphia in 1787, which formulated the new U.S. Constitution (Const. amend. XIV. §.2). The Amendment aimed to defend the nation, maintain an experienced and diligent military to review governmental despotism and deliver harmony of law, constitution and society by disbursing the freedom of possessing Arms.
James Madison proposed the Second Amendment to allow the formation of civic armies capable of opposing a despotic federal government. Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitutional Convention’s establishment of a unified conscript army gave the central government too much authority and the possibility of violent subjugation. Amendment II was approved along with the other nine Bill of Rights provisions on December 15, 1791.
Along with positioning the Amendment to respect the rights of citizens to own guns in general in the United States, it limited federal authority and gave state governments more control and leverage over the national government. Courts and historians agreed that Amendment II secured only the right of citizens to defend their liberty through participation in a state militia. Therefore, the second amendment is a tool to curb the possible legal malpractice not only of the federal authorities but also, as the practice of the US Supreme Court shows, state and municipal ones.
Any designations of Second Amendment or different liberties as auxiliary should always be considered in light of a Bill of Rights’ fundamental aim. Such primary aim is to equip a population with the capability to accomplish the unanimously preferred goal of equal rights. This fact was one of the reasons why both John Adams and James Monroe endorsed the Constitution’s ratification, while its most significant framer was Thomas Jefferson, by some opinions a big proponent of the Second Amendment.
In Federalist No. 46, Madison argued how state militias would keep a federal army in check. Moreover, he contended that it may readily be disputed whether such a fraction of regular forces could ever vanquish a militia so available for patients. He compared the federal government of the U.S. to the European monarchies, which he defined as frightened to entrust the individuals who carry guns. In other words, the presence of subsidiary governments creates a barrier against ventures of ambition.
By the late twentieth century, however, a sizable minority of judges had endorsed the “self-defense” reading of the Amendment. The self-defense viewpoint was assumed to have been granted by vast sectors of the American people, particularly those who regularly opposed gun restrictions. Prior to 2008, the United States Supreme Court had never fully explored the substantive reach of the 2nd Amendment.
The Supreme Court concluded in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), its original hearing on the matter, that the Second Amendment prohibited states from restricting people from owning and carrying guns. This act denied the United States their proper resources for maintaining public security. More than forty years later, in the United States v. Schwimmer 128 U.S. 287 (1929), the Judiciary declared the 2nd Amendment as enshrining the duty of individuals.
Consequently, in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Judiciary overlooked acknowledging the enshrined in the constitution scope of the 2nd Amendment by simply holding that ownership or possession of shotguns with a canister of fewer than 20 inches was not any part of the standard military equipment shielded by the 2nd Amendment. Moreover, the recent historic impact of the N.R.A. cannot be overlooked since it and its proponents are big supporters of the Second Amendment and have a hold on the republican establishment, particularly President Trump. However, the N.R.A. ‘s authority among gun owners has a similar level to its oversight of the federal government’s legislative and executive departments. It is less commonly recognized that the National Rifle Association has reshaped the Court, rewriting the understanding of the 2nd Constitutional Amendment.
Despite the contorted structure of the document itself, the content of the 2nd Amendment was plain: A well-regulated Militia, being essential to the endeavor of a Free State, the freedom of the individuals to possess and carry Arms, must not be infringed. Decades of Supreme Court and scholarly opinion maintained that Amendment II did not grant people the right “to keep and bear Arms” but instead referred primarily to state militia rights. The Amendment, not being a debatable viewpoint, the late CJ Warren E. Burger declared in 1991 that the notion that the Second Amendment granted individuals the right to carry guns was a “fraud on the American public.” However, his stance merely represented the general opinion at the time.
Essentially, the endeavors to alter the country’s political destiny took opposing ideological paths because of the diversity of interpretation. However, the techniques were very similar, despite the legal situation being complex in both instances, particularly in federal courts. In both cases, the campaign for reform of the Second Amendment legacy began with success at the state and local levels and culminated at the Federal Courts. Concerning both same-sex marriages and gun rights, the Court systems eventually yielded to the revolutionary group that had galvanized politicians, scholars, and others.
The Seminal Supreme Court Case, District of the Columbia V Heller
The lawsuit arose in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) after the Heller decision failed to specify whether the 2nd Amendment impacts state or municipal firearm regulations or limits the federal government’s jurisdiction. In 2008, McDonald disputed the 1976 statute that prohibited the ownership of weapons and firearms. Following this complaint, numerous further claims were launched because the restriction on weapons infringes on their rights. The District Judges of Chicago dismissed the lawsuit. However, the plea was accepted in a re-appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a historic ruling of the Supreme Court. This was the first judicial decision to examine whether the second amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. It affirmed that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for conventionally legal purposes.
It also affirmed the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns and the necessity that legitimately possessed rifles and shotguns be maintained “unloaded and disassembled or bound.” The ruling also noted that the liberty to own firearms is not boundless and that firearms and gun possession would continue to be controlled. The decision did not address whether the Second Amendment was subject to the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It went against the states due to the District of Columbia’s standing as a national territory (it is not in any U.S. state). McDonald v. City of Chicago held in 2010 addressed this argument two years later, finding that the Second Amendment was the subject to the 14th Amendment provisions.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court initially declared that people are entitled to self-defense in their homes. However, the Court also clarified in dicta that this right is not unbounded and does not eliminate the existence of some long-standing prohibitions. For instance, those that prohibit the ownership of weapons by criminals and the mentally challenged or limitation on “the carrying of threatening and unconventional firearms.”
The Supreme Court concluded in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case held in 2010 that state and local governments are subject to the same restrictions. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), “Heller may be regarded not as idealism, but rather as deeper founded in rational thinking: it mirrored a public consensus obtained by compelled activists,” writes Waldman. Notably, the Heller case did not attempt to unravel the intent of the founding fathers and correctly interpret the meaning of the amendment.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court’s findings in McDonald and Heller indicate that there were numerous legal scholars, who disputed with the majority that Amendment II guaranteed an inalienable right to own firearms for self-defense in their homes (Const. amend. XIV. §.2). Citizens are equally entitled to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and protection of property. The right to possess and carry weapons was characterized by Sir William Blackstone as a supplementary right, supporting the inherent rights to defend oneself and defiance to oppression and the civic responsibility to operate in harmony in defense of the state
Flaws in Reasoning
There are several reasons why originalism in the interpretation of the Second Amendment can be called flawed. The first flaw in reasoning emerges when it comes to the ambiguity of the wording and aims of the Second Amendment. Some argue that it was initially designed to guarantee people’s collective rights to bear weapons to keep the peace by armed services that might be called up in reaction to emergencies.
All whites between 20 and 45 years were formerly required to serve in state militias; however, this commitment was rarely enforced. Others contend that the Amendment was designed to safeguard people’s right to keep and carry weapons for reasons other than militia duty. This argument highlights the critiques of the 2nd Amendment based on its complexity.
Second flaw in reasoning pertains to the limits of the right to bear arms since the emphasis on militia or individuals is not as evident. The debate is about whether it preserves a person’s liberty to carry and bear weapons or if it exclusively extends to militia organizations like the National Guard. Amaro (2019) states that the Second Amendment is especially perplexing since its structure has undergone grammatical modification rather than merely changes in terms or vocabulary knowledge. Words change more quickly and often than syntax; therefore, they are simpler to detect.
The third and immensely substantial flaw is the incorrect perception of the situation in the format of originalism. It appears due to the great difference in the timing of the amendment and modernity. It makes no sense to interpret the words, intentions and opinions of the founding fathers and to impose them on the current situation of technological progress, factors of availability and lethality of weapons, and vectors of existence and development of society. Armed conflict, the danger of internal wars or invasion of U.S. territory by other countries was much more significant at the time of the Second Amendment. Accordingly, the archaic character of the concept of the militia is confirmed by an objective assessment of the view of the essence of the amendment as an instrument of self-organization of the people’s armies.
Furthermore, it should be noted that one still can use history to argue for gun regulation. Judges and legal experts utilize accounts to assess what kinds of restrictions are congruent with the 2nd Amendment’s safeguard for the freedom to keep and bear weapons. According to Dawson, no constitution is permanent, including the freedom of speech or the right to bear arms, since courts have previously affirmed bans on pornography and fighting language. According to Blum, the Second Amendment issue contrasts proponents of an armed citizenry against others who think the Bill of Rights guarantees the people’s right to keep a well-regulated militia. Except for certain 2nd Amendment dogmatists, most proponents of individual rights feel that certain limits on firearms ownership are permissible.
The universal rights perspective contends that the Declaration does not safeguard an individual’s firearms rights. Such a right may exist in some state statutes, but the 2nd Amendment is only about the Militia. Until 2008, judges and publishers of law school casebooks embraced the individual liberty approach in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). The United States Supreme Court ruled that “ownership of the firearm at the moment has some possible connection to the efficiency of a well-regulated paramilitary.” It cannot be said that the privilege to possess such an instrument is guaranteed under the Second Amendment.
The Miller consensus has come under criticism on various fronts. Some legal academics contend that if the United States v. Miller ruling were followed, no entitlement to possess a sniper rifle would exist. Others criticized that the judges in United States v. Miller’s case misinterpreted history and dismissed the validity of a well-established personal right to own a gun. The feedback matters because it highlights the malleability of the interpretive thought behind the Second Amendment.
Essentially, the Bill of Rights drafters, the states that approved the provisions, did not prohibit slavery and never demanded equal protection and fair process in court rulings. Former Supreme Court Judge Thurgood Marshall declined to speak at a constitutional bicentennial commemoration in 1987, citing his dissatisfaction with the Framers’ “wisdom, vision, and sense of justice”. The judge contended that the administration that they constructed was flawed from the start. He declared the necessity of multiple modifications, a civil war, and a tremendous societal revolution.
As a result, depending on what the pioneers envisioned in the 1790s no longer seemed wise or appropriate. However, there is no need to utilize “originalism” to read the right to own guns, specifically when the same result may be reached by seeing the law as a living text that reflects the country’s ideals. The principle of the law can be applied by changing circumstances. Finally, it is possible that the Court will acknowledge interpretations based on originalism as flawed.
Gun Control v. American Culture
The dilemma of weapons has always existed in the U.S.A., primarily negatively affecting society. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes the right to carry weapons for self-defense in their homes. Stating that ‘a well-regulated ‘Militia,’ being essential to the safety of the states, the freedom of the citizens to keep and bear firearms shall not be infringed. A militia is a group of individuals who own guns and use them for emergency services such as national defense.
In 1879, a frontier city called “Dodge City” in Kansas had a sign in the center of the main street that said, “The Carrying of Automatic Weapons Expressly Forbidden.” Wichita, Kansas, had a sign that said, “The Carrying of weapons strictly Prohibited.” However, the outlying towns had tight gun control regulations to limit the bloodshed they were renowned for causing. Many municipalities had laws prohibiting the carrying of guns inside city borders unless one was a law enforcement officer. Individuals had to sign their firearms in with officials and acquire a token to collect the weapons later or store firearms with their steed at the carriage stables before entering cities.
Under the living constitutionalism idea, Americans have always treasured their right to bear guns for self-defense. The common-law freedom of human self-defense was well created long before the right to carry weapons was codified in American constitutions; it existed independently of that right. In reaction to Native American invasions, Virginia compelled all males to be armed during the colonial period. The American Revolution was sparked by a political attempt to seize people’s guns. As the country evolved and people traveled westward, the government compelled frontiersmen to acquire weapons to hunt and protect themselves against wildlife, Native Americans, and other ‘troublemakers.’
The frontier communities have recorded a remarkably low crime and murder rate. Between 1877 and 1888, Kansas City, which had a reputation for being vicious, had just fifteen homicides, or one and a half a year. Since1980s, the N.R.A. expanded its campaign to relax gun laws. The N.R.A. persuaded Congress in 1986 to adopt the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which relaxed parts of the 1968 Act’s gun rules.
Consequently, beginning in the 1970s, the National Rifle Association embarked on a methodical and intensive campaign to influence the public and, finally, the Court’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The N.R.A. acknowledged that the decisions taken by the supreme court obstructed its approach, which is why it took a state-by-state strategy. It is believed that states’ embrace and passage of gun-rights legislation “fostered a legal system in which the freedom to possess weapons had a special privilege.”
Simultaneously, the N.R.A. funded scholarly studies that attempted to demonstrate that the traditional interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was inaccurate. The trend peaked in 2008 when the Judiciary updated its view of the 2nd Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), concluding that the Creators of the U.S. Constitution had meant the Amendment to grant a personal right to carry weapons.
As of 2015, almost 50 states specifically preserve the right to carry weapons in their constitutions. In 2008, approximately 70% of Americans felt the Second Amendment guaranteed independent freedom to carry weapons. According to renowned political scientist Robert Spitzer, “there is no other nation with abundant firearms or irrevocably associated with individual identity and popular value systems as they are in the U.S.”
Faculty members Philip Cook and Kristin Goss clarify that there is “no other country with numerous firearms integrally linked to personal identity and popular principles as they are in the U.S.” In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the majority reached the same result and overturned Washington D.C.’s total prohibition on weapons. This is achieved by acknowledging that the ability to carry weapons for traditionally lawful purposes has been a fundamental and crucial right since the country’s founding.
Future Directions with the Second Amendment
The right to rebel against an oppressive government is the essence of the 2nd Amendment. It also gives people the freedom to defend themselves without government interference. The amendment is supposed to guarantee civilians the right to self-defense without government interference.
The reason is that this is an explicable purpose of the amendment, present in all interpretations. Similarly, the 2nd Amendment should give individuals the right to defend themselves against external and internal threats if the government fails to do so. The cause of this is the fact that the conditional nature of the statement makes it clear that threats must be proven, and the government’s failure to do so must be established.
Although the language used in the 2nd Amendment may be simplified, the current state of affairs may suggest that things remain as they are. However, it would not be superfluous to clarify further that such language might read, “The army, necessary to the security of a free state, shall not infringe upon the right of soldiers and servicemen to keep and bear arms.”
Similarly, the Amendment could be detailed depending on whether it guarantees the right of individuals to keep and bear arms or refers solely to militia groups such as the National Guard. The reason for this is the still-existing legal practice variance in interpretation. Moreover, the term ‘militia’ is irrelevant these days, so its meaning is not apparent enough in terms of applicability to ordinary civilians.
The United States needs to enact better gun control legislation to prevent gun deaths and reduce crime. Gun violence and gun deaths are becoming serious societal health problems, and effective action requires gun control legislation. Thus, keeping things as they are will only continue to create ambiguity in people’s understanding of the nature of the amendment and provoke controversy.
Amendment measures have inherently been built into the Constitution for future unpredictable changes. It has been argued that “although the Founding Fathers specifically made the process of amending the Constitution difficult, they nevertheless provided a tool for doing so.” There was a recognition that radical change would manifest itself in the future. Hence, the direction of developments along the way adheres to malleable interpretive thought, which is not hindered by originalism.
Blum argues that “the Founding Fathers wanted our modern society to address mass shootings, gun suicides, and violent gun crimes.” The Constitution is meant to serve and protect society through its values, priorities, and recognition. Blum goes on to argue that “they would not want powerful gun lobby groups to obstruct public safety measures based on the flawed ‘slippery slope’ argument, which could be eliminated by amending the Second Amendment.”
Thus, it is clear that determining the intent behind the constitutional provisions is a difficult task. However, it is much clearer to understand that public safety is a top priority when faced with the prospect of choosing between it and specific lobby interests. Therefore, fully respecting the citizen’s rights associated with the Second Amendment requires a unifying understanding of it and a focus on further clarification instead of leaving it as it is.
The Current Developments
The Supreme Court is about to broaden Second Amendment gun rights, which indicates that keeping the existing interpretations as they are will not bring a substantive change in terms of better gun laws. Law scholar Darrell Miller predicts that the Court’s conservative justices will usher in a “dramatic transformation” in the law.
Guns should be banned in courtrooms, schools, colleges, and hospitals. Some states are integrating concealed gun carry laws on campuses, which can be considered an attack on knowledge, freedom, and intellectual integrity. The main reason is that higher education institutions are the bastions of open speech and discussions. The stasis theory is the most useful and will be utilized for the given public argument since it involves a policy, facts, value of education and life, as well as cause and effect.
Therefore, opponents claim that campuses should not allow the carrying of guns because it increases the risk and escalation of violence among students, diminishes the First Amendment, and puts academic educators at risk. This stance on gun control is a departure from the Court’s previous interpretation of the provision. However, it ought not to be shocking to anybody who has monitored the Court’s precedent in this field over the last decade.
Amending the Second Amendment to make it Explicit That It Only Applies to Militias
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the fundamental intent of the Second Amendment, as initially construed, should be clarified. The Second Amendment protects armed militias from national oppression and intrusion and does not include any individual right to carry weapons. Former Justice John Steven proposed amending the 2nd Amendment by stating it should “unambiguously correspond to the original purpose of its draftsmen.” The claim is that it should read as follows: “A well-regulated Militia is essential for the state’s security, and the individuals’ privilege to keep and carry Arms when representing in the Militia should not be infringed.” In this manner, state legislatures might control the use of weapons by their residents without being restricted by any constitutional provisions.
In order to explain that the Second Amendment exclusively pertains to armies, the interpretation should include modifying it by reducing its obscurity in meaning and clarity. It is stated that “the single most foundational principle on which our liberal regime rests is the inherent right of self-defense against violent assaults, whether from common criminals or political activists or tyrannical governments.” It means that altering the term militia does not change the basic principle underlying the Second Amendment. For example, Blum argues that in order for the federal government to effectively address gun violence, it needs the court to adopt a “militia understanding of the Second Amendment,” distinguishing a separate legal interpretation
The shift in the interpretation of the emphasis on militia rather than an individual might require rewording effort, which is why the challenge is a difficult one. Such a conclusion can be made by analyzing the total body of evidence in the form of court rulings as well as criticisms from the legal scholar discussed previously. The influence of powerful organizations in appealing to specific interpretations of recent developments, such as 2008, demonstrates that there is a range of interpretive approaches to the Second Amendment. In other words, the terms utilized in the law are malleable depending on the levers of power imposed upon it. While the N.R.A. and pro-gun lobbyists focus on the individual using originalism and slippery slope tactics, another interpretation can be derived by focusing on the national defense in the form of armies derived from the militia.
The current wording of the Second Amendment leaves room to interpret the outdated terms to mean what the interpreter seeks to pursue. Therefore, there is a great degree of value in reassessing how the amendment should be written in order to leave less room for interpretative influence. It can either solidify the gun lobby’s position or make it uniquely relevant for national security apparatus only. In both cases, there is great value for all stakeholders in bringing precision, accuracy, and clarity in the rewording of the Second Amendment.
The cons of rewording are that it can cement one specific interpretation of the Second Amendment, which would appeal to the gun lobby’s interest. It can be a major problem since it will mean that no future change can be enacted to change the interpretive approach around the Second Amendment. The term militia can become applicable to civilian citizens of the U.S. in perpetuity, and it will eliminate any opportunity to integrate effective gun laws to address gun violence. The outcome of such a possible development will leave only a single option for the gun-control lobby, which would mean the complete repeal of the amendment. Thus, if it solidifies the N.R.A. and gun lobbyists’ position, then a proper discourse can be had regarding its repeal since its impact on gun violence will become more apparent without any efforts wasted in changing the interpretation.
For the pros, if the rewording is made clearer to mean only national security-related understandings of the term militia in the law, then gun laws can be easily integrated. However, the advantages of rewording cumulatively outweigh the immediate cons because both outcomes are beneficial for the gun-control lobby. The rewording will benefit the latter by either making its gun control regulations more effective or redirecting its efforts towards the repeal if the solidification of the interpretation is done in favor of the pro-gun lobby. The issue of gun violence will ultimately be resolved through gun control only since other measures, such as mental health, are only about lesser confounding variables.
In light of recent developments in interpretation, for example, the 14th Amendment’s legal adoption, it is critical to understand that the emphasis on militia has always been a priority throughout American history. Blum states that “the Second Amendment’s language is ambiguous at best, and at worst, favors the militia interpretation that had prevailed for over 200 years.” This essentially means that the modern politically and culturally driven interpretive thought is a novelty initiated, sustained, and advocated by powerful lobby interests, especially the N.R.A. In addition, any form of objection on the basis of the intent behind the Founding Fathers’ logic and authority is mostly irrelevant since it is a guessing game.
Thus, a solid and non-erroneous conclusion can be made based on these observations of history and interest groups. Firstly, every individual has a right to own, use, and possess a firearm for self-defense purposes. Secondly, the government has the right and authority to ensure and improve public safety through regulations. These two objectives are not cultural, political, controversial, or necessarily opposing. Sound and logical gun laws can be implemented while allowing citizens of the United States to have effective means of self-protection with the use of guns. All of these statements can work under the new individual-centered interpretation, which means there is no requirement to return to militia term debates.
Amending the 2nd Amendment to Recognize the Right to Keep and Bear Arms with Reasonable Gun Control Regulations
Other than eliminating or altering the Second Amendment into obscurity, it should be updated to expressly say that it preserves an individual’s right to possess a gun while subject to reasonable public safety rules. Amending the 2nd Amendment to positively say that it protects an individual’s right to possess a gun will ideally remove or ‘dry up’ the slippery slope argument used by the N.R.A. and other conservative organizations. It is stated that “the status quo is untenable, as many gun rights groups feel that gun regulations are just a first step in a slippery slope of undermining the Second Amendment …. for self-defense.”
In other words, the removal of the slippery slope argument will require an unprecedented judicial ruling and legal review of the position. The role of the N.R.A. in its willingness to reconsider its approach plays a major role in establishing a case for recognition of gun control measures. The organization is of prime interest since it is a major stakeholder and source of influence because reasonable regulations can co-exist with the Second Amendment.
The pros of such a change will be an easier implementation of more effective gun laws across the U.S. Under these developments, citizens will not be denied gun ownership rights, but there will be stricter measures of control imposed alongside owning a firearm. This would result in mandatory licensing, training, and tracking of guns sold and distributed across America.
Mass gun violence will be essentially curbed since each gun owner will be mandated to have a degree of responsibility acquired through training and licensing processes. In addition, deadly weapons, such as AR-15, will be completely banned from the gun market circulation since no person needs a firearm capable of causing mass deaths for self-defense purposes. The final benefit of such a change is that there will be less backlash from the pro-gun citizens since they will still be allowed to own guns but will need to undergo licensing and training measures.
However, the cons include malleability and interpretative vulnerability. In other words, the term ‘reasonable’ does not communicate precise and direct meaning, which means that the gun lobby, such as the N.R.A., can still use its method of influence to fight around the wording. The word reasonable can be used in courts to prevent gun regulations from appealing to the judges that the measures are ‘unreasonable.’ Data manipulation and political power struggles will still remain even if such a change is to be integrated.
While the McDonald and Heller judgments establish that the Second Amendment preserves an individual’s right to own a pistol for self-defense, they were decided 5-4, overturning two centuries of precedent. Regardless of the Supreme Court’s present composition, these rulings might be reversed. Thus, rather than the dominant vague language that could be reframed by a future Federal Court, upholding the Amendment unequivocally protects an individual’s right to own a gun.
The right could provide necessary protection to gun rights groups so that restrictions will not be a dangerous path of encroaching on the fundamental right to possess a firearm for self-defense. Methods should be investigated to establish the rights more firmly in the Constitution with a stronger articulation on the possibility of implementation of measures enabling the co-existence of the Second Amendment with gun control regulations. Such a development will not only create more precise definitions of key terms but ensure that the judiciary and legislative process cannot be influenced by powerful lobbying powers, such as the N.R.A.
Repealing the Second Amendment
On the basis of the information presented above, the repealment of the Second Amendment is the best course of action because it will eliminate all the methods, such as originalism, slippery slope, or rewording, used by the gun lobby. It will remove the constitutional authority granted to the gun industry and ensure that the most effective public safety and public health measures can be integrated. While the rewording can lead to substantial changes, it risks strengthening the gun lobby’s position even more. The change in interpretation can be considered a temporary solution since it tends to shift periodically under the influence of the N.R.A. and political power groups. ‘Drying up’ the slippery slope argument is a long and resource-intensive endeavor, where the boundaries need to be pushed in a legal battle against powerful pro-gun organizations and groups.
Thus, instead of focusing on these temporary, risky, and possibly wasteful attempts to reduce the constitutional authority of the gun lobby, it might be more worthwhile to work on the case for repealment. A constitutional amendment can be repealed in a couple of ways. The first procedure requires most of the Senate members to approve any change. Ultimately, a constitutional convention is an option for repealing an amendment. In such a situation, multiple state legislatures would have to ask for such a conference, and states would draft amendments that most states must adopt.
However, it is difficult for gun control measures to succeed currently in Congress, which requires just a simple majority, noting that repeal would necessitate a ‘sea shift’ in how Americans see gun control and the freedom to carry weapons. As a result, enacting a constitutional change is extremely difficult since it implies that there will be a drastic political and public transition. The facilitation and initiation of such shifts on a nationwide scale might require a serious trigger to reconsider the implications of the existing arguments supporting the current implementations of the related practices.
The repealment and the revision of legal documents in the face of public safety danger is not an unprecedented scenario. Blum writes: “whether it is Colonial America, the Wild West and dueling, gangsters in the 1920s, or urban riots in the 1960s, the states and the federal government have historically enacted gun safety laws.” In other words, the paralysis in the legislative revision strictly insisted upon by the N.R.A. is caused by the slippery slope argument, the banishment of which will necessitate the ‘dry up’ to alleviate it.
Creating a straw man is an oversimplification of one’s perspective and attacking it as if it was hollow. For example, the statement that people who support gun laws are against the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution is a strawman, who easily jumps into slippery slope conclusions. One might support gun laws without being anti-gun but merely want background checks and better tracking of weapons, and thus, the argument excessively oversimplifies the opponents’ stance.
Conclusion
In summary, repealing the Second Amendment is the most effective solution, as it would revoke the constitutional power given to the gun industry and allow the implementation of stronger public safety and health measures. This action would also prevent the gun lobby from using tactics such as originalism, slippery slope arguments, or rewording to maintain its influence. A look at American history indicates a fundamental truth: weapons may be used with appropriate gun controls to manage public safety.
America’s gun culture comprises both gun ownership rights and gun control. Whether it was Colonies America, the New Frontier, feuding gangsters in the 19th century, or urban upheavals in the 60s, both states and the federal government have traditionally passed gun control legislation to control public safety. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark Supreme Court decision that confirmed the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess and carry firearms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The interpretation of the Amendment depends on whether it secures a personal right to own weapons or applies solely to organized militia groups like the National Guard. However, people appear to be immobilized today by the NRA’s assertion that most sensible gun regulations are merely a slippery slope.
Based on these observations and assessments, the wording used in the 2nd Amendment should be simplified. The interpretation of the Amendment should clarify whether it protects an individual’s right to possess firearms or pertains solely to organized militias like the National Guard. Moreover, the United States should implement stronger gun control laws to reduce firearm-related deaths and deter crime.
The Supreme Court appears poised to expand Second Amendment protections, suggesting that maintaining current interpretations will not lead to meaningful change. Given recent shifts in legal understanding, it is essential to recognize that the focus on militias has historically been central in American thought. Arguments based on the supposed intentions of the Founding Fathers are largely speculative and, therefore, hold limited relevance. Ultimately, individuals have the right to own and use firearms for self-defense, while the government holds the authority to regulate these rights in the interest of public safety.
References
Adam Winkler, Is The Second Amendment Becoming Irrelevant, Ind. L.J., 2018, at 13.
Alex Augustine, Second Amendment and the Gun-Control Controversies: A Flaw in Constitutional Framing and an Antinomy of American Conservatism, For. Leg. Investig. Sci., 2019, at 8.
Alexander D. Lynch, Armed and Dangerous: The Ascendance of the National Rifle Association, Bard Dig. Com., 2020, at 2.
Amel Bensalem, Flaws Are Only Parchment Deep, Verso: An Un. J. of Lit. Crit., 2020, at 107.
Bennett E. Kuhar, Restoration of Second Amendment Rights from a Lifetime Ban Imposed by 18 U.S.C. § 922(G)(4): The Sixth Circuit Provides a Path Forward, Clev. St. L. Rev., 2022, at 5.
Chester Harper, Citizen or Soldier? An Originalist Response to District of Columbia v. Heller and the Intellectual Origins of the Second Amendment, Dartmouth L. J., 2019, at 27.
Claire Boine et al., What Is Gun Culture? Cultural Variations and Trends Across the United States. Hum. and Soc. Sci. Com., 2020, at 5.
Daniel W. Webster & Lawrence O. Gostin, The Supreme Court Expands Second Amendment Rights as The Nation Experiences Historic Levels of Firearms Violence, JAMA, 2022, at 1188.
Danny Valdez et al., Topic Modeling: Latent Semantic Analysis for the Social Sciences, Soc. Sci. Quar., 2018, at 1674.
Darrell A. H. Miller, Owning Heller, U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y, 2019, at 4.
David S. Cohen, Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment, Rol. St., Jun. 2017, at 12. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008).
Drury D. Stevenson, Revisiting the Original Congressional Debates about the Second Amendment, Mis. Law Rev., 2022, at 6.
Edward J. Curtis, Of Arms and the Militia: Gun Regulation by Defining ‘Ordinary Military Equipment,’ Touro L. Rev., 2021, at 3.
Emily D. Asher et al., Aiming for Safety: Implementing Firearm Training Statutes, Balanced by Second Amendment Jurisprudence, Cap. Un. Law Rev., 2022, at 173.
Erica Turret et al., Second Amendment Sanctuaries: A Legally Dubious Protest Movement, The Jour. of L. M. & E., 2021, at 8.
Gary J. Vega. Self-Defense, the Second Amendment, and Non-Citizens, Rev. Der. PR, 2021, at 98.
Ian Angus & Sut Jhally. Cultural Politics in Contemporary America, 1 (1st ed. 2022), Web.
Jeffrey D. Jackson, Be Careful What You Wish for: Why McDonald v. City of Chicago’s Rejection of the Privileges or Immunities Clause May Not Be Such a Bad Thing for Rights, Pen. St. Law Rev., 2021, at 3.
Jessica Dawson. Shall Not Be Infringed: How The N.R.A. Used Religious Language to Transform the Meaning of the Second Amendment. Pal. Com., 2019, at 4.
Joel Mitchell, Knowing Gun Control: The Relationship between Opinion and Knowledge in the American Gun Control Debate, San Diego St. Un., 2020, at 21.
Joseph Blocher, Cities, Preemption, And The Statutory Second Amendment, Un. of Ch. Law Rev., 2022, at 88.
Joseph Greenlee, The Right to Train: A Pillar of the Second Amendment, Wil. & Mar. B. of R. Jour., 2022, at 41.
Lee Epstein & David T. Konig, The Strange Story of the Second Amendment in The Federal Courts and Why It Matters, Wash. U. J. L. & Pol’y, 2019, at 5.
Madison Armstrong & Jennifer Carlson, Speaking of Trauma: The Race Talk, The Gun Violence Talk, And The Racialization of Gun Trauma, Pal. Com., 2019, at 3.
Mark W. Smith, Second-Class Rights and Second-Class Americans: Applying Carolene Products Footnote Four and the Court’s Enforcement of Nationally Accepted Norms Against Local Outlier Jurisdictions in Second Amendment Enforcement Litigations, Cat. Un. Law Rev., 2021, at 17.
Matthew J. Lacombe, The Political Weaponization of Gun Owners: The National Rifle Association’s Cultivation, Dissemination, and Use of a Group Social Identity. The Jour. of Pol., 2021, at 1355.
Michael C. Dorf, The Constitutional Politics Heller Launched, Duke LJ Onl., 2019, at 13.
Morgan Marietta, SCOTUS 2022, 305 (2022), Web.
Nelson Lund, The Future of the Second Amendment in a Time of Lawless Violence, Nw. U.L. Rev., 2021, at 81.
Nicholas J. Johnson et., Firearms Law and the Second Amendment: Regulation, Rights, and Policy, 1 (3rd ed. 2022).
Renee Butkus et al., Reducing Firearm Injuries and Deaths in the United States: A Position Paper from the American College of Physicians, An. Of Int. Med., 2018, at 7.
Robert J. Suhrie, Scalia’s Ironic Swan Song: D.C. V. Heller as Faint-Hearted Originalism, Cal. St. Un., 2018, at 31.
Shawn E. Fields, Second Amendment Sanctuaries, Nw. U. L. Rev., 2021, at 4.
Stephanie C. Blum, Drying Up the Slippery Slope: A New Approach to the Second Amendment, Buff. L. Rev., 2020, at 961.
Stephen P. Halbrook, The Founders’ Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms, at 71 (1st ed. 2019).
Susan P. Liebell, Sensitive Places?: How Gender Unmasks the Myth of Originalism in District of Columbia v. Heller, The Un. Of. Chic. Pr., 2021, at 7.
Timothy Zick, The Second Amendment as a Fundamental Right, Hastings Const. L.Q., 2018, at 11.
Trent Steidley, Big Guns or Big Talk? How The National Rifle Association Matters for Concealed Carry Weapons Laws, Mob: An Int. Quar., 23(1), 2018, at 112.
William Slomanson, Second Amendment: The Dozen Yardsticks for Measuring its Scope, at 51 (1st ed. 2017).