second

Second Amendment-Right to Bear Arms-Abriana Menin

Video

Written Component

Second Amendment – Right to Bear Arms

The second amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America reads as follows: “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.” I will be focusing particularly on the section regarding the right to bear arms, or in other words, the right of individuals to own and carry protective weapons. The bill of rights, which was created in order to ensure the individual rights of people were established in addition to the laws of the constitution, was ratified and added to the constitution on December 15, 1791; barely a decade after the end of the American Revolution. This is significant because the United States had only recently finished fighting in the war, so it is understandable why an amendment would be added to give each individual the right to own firearms and protect themselves in the event that citizens would need to rally together in the future, whether to fight against external forces or even their own government. It is also important to acknowledge that the United States had fought in the war with an under-resourced military composed of ordinary people who had already owned firearms, therefore the people agreed it would be best to maintain that right. Furthermore, the people of the United States believed that the government should not have the right to deprive an individual of their right to bear arms just as seriously as they believed one should not be denied freedom of speech and exercise of religion. 

Although the ideals behind the amendment were unified, the interpretations of the right to bear arms were very divergent once the amendment was ratified. Many of the debates surrounding the right to bear arms all directly relate back to the reality that the United States has evolved significantly since the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Specifically, the United States no longer has militias, and the federal government supplies resources to the federal army, therefore there is no need for civilians to have arms at the ready in case war strikes again. More recently, the Second Amendment has been interpreted as a right to own weapons as a means for self defense; however, there were still some loopholes in the language of the amendment. These loopholes were scrutinized and regulated in the Supreme Court case “District of Columbia v. Heller” (2008). In this case, Heller argued that prohibiting concealed carry, the use of arms by felons and people who are mentally ill, along with prohibiting being armed in places like schools and government buildings, in light of modern-day society, is still lawful despite the phrasing of the second amendment, but still strives to maintain the right for each individual to bear arms for the soul purpose of self-defense. This has caused much controversy since the court ruling agreed with Heller, specifically regarding cases involving concealed-carry and what is considered self-defense. 

Moreover, the right to bear arms is a direct consequence of the founding enlightenment idea of the right to own property, and the establishment of the government as an institution that cannot take away that right, thus enforcing negative liberty. Therefore it was believed that taking away one’s right to bear arms would transitively be infringing what it means to be an American citizen. However, I do not agree that every citizen should be able to own and use arms under any circumstance. If I were to amend this amendment, I would change it to read “the right of the authorized government officials to keep and bear Arms, shall be permitted until said official proves themself untrustworthy.” This way, only people who are appointed by the government to use arms for specific purposes will be able to have access to weapons. However, if they demonstrate any reason to be fearful of the way in which they use those arms, the government has the ability to strip that official of their entitlement.

Leila Grey – The Second Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Second Amendment was initially enforced because the American public was searching for a new normal after the American Revolution. During this time, anti-federalists were scared of having another oppressive government. The federalists believed that by allowing people to have guns, it would begin to lessen the amount of power the government had over people by giving them weapons to defend themselves. The common understanding of this amendment was that militias, made up of working class citizens, were able to have weapons solely for defensive purposes. Along with this, the militias were given limited military training to ensure their ability to defend themselves and others. Originally, the Second Amendment was only applied to the federal government and each individual state could come up with their own regulations regarding firearms and weapons. This later became a large debate about whether the federal or state government should be in charge of gun bans and mandates in each state.   

There have been many debates about the Second Amendment starting with the United States v. Cruikshank in 1876. The United States v. Cruikshank case argued that the federal government should not have authority over the individual states opinions on guns. There have also been differing opinions regarding the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Adam Winkler claimed that the Founding Fathers did not intend for the government to have guns without regulations and that when the amendment was placed, they had people checking and inspecting guns before and after they were purchased. He also states that the founders aimed for this amendment to ensure safety from a possible tyrannical government or invaders. However, in 2008 the case of District of Columbia v. Heller took place. Heller argued that the handgun regulations in D.C went against their individual constitutional right to be able to carry guns for self defense. The other side of this debate argued that the Second Amendment only defends a small individual right and it should be inferred that there would be state mandates in areas with high crime rates. This case is important because it was the first court case to address whether the right to bear arms applied to an individual or if it was intended only for state militias.   

I found that the D.C. side of the District of Columbia v. Heller case was more persuasive because Heller argues that the Second Amendment does not limit the right to bear arms to a militia, however, the amendment clearly states that when referencing a free state, an orderly militia is given the right to carry guns, not the individual. Even though the people who form a militia are not appointed the title of being a soldier, they are meant to defend their community if necessary. Since many states within the nation have advocated for the right to carry firearms, in those states there should be more regulations that explicitly state where guns will be allowed along with having those rules more heavily enforced. In addition to heavier mandates, there should also be background checks for people who want to buy guns to scan for any compromising factors, like a mental illness or previous criminal activity, that could lead to extreme violence or dangers.   

Sam Shapiro-The Second Amendment

Video

Written Component

When the Constitution was ratified, many people believed that armies were a way for governments to oppress their citizens. The Second Amendment, which grants citizens the right to bear arms, served as a counterbalance to this potential threat to liberty. Citizens bearing arms allowed the government to utilize standalone militias consisting of regular people with their own guns as an alternative to a standing army. The right to bear arms also gave citizens a direct ability to resist tyranny.

However, the common interpretation of the Second Amendment, that it all grants citizens the right to bear arms, is subject to debate. Some argue that like the First and Fourth Amendments, the Second Amendment is an individual right granting personal protection and a right to self-defense. In this context, regulations cannot sacrifice one’s individual right to protection, and gun control laws must be extremely limited in nature to be constitutional. The ‘individual right’ argument was supported by the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in D.C. vs Heller. This ruling overturned previous gun control restrictions in the District. 

Others argue that the Second Amendment supports a more limited right to bear arms. They argue that the first clause of the amendment, “a well regulated Militia,” is a restriction on gun ownership; gun control is therefore broadly permissible. This is further supported by the fact that gun control laws existed when this amendment was enacted. At the time, slaves and loyalists were banned from gun ownership, and laws specified which guns were allowed for militias to use. Some of these laws were intended for public safety. As a result, this side believes that gun ownership today, and the Second Amendment more broadly, must be placed in the context of public safety concerns.

Today, the Second Amendment has proven to be problematic because our society is very different from the founding fathers’ era. The Constitution was ratified at a time when people were concerned about government tyranny. The Second Amendment, by enabling citizen militias, partially addressed that concern. Today, government tyranny is much less of a fear as it was, and even if it is a concern, individuals owning guns are powerless against the US Military. So, the reasons behind the Second Amendment no longer exist, but Americans still have the right to bear arms. This right, combined with the availability of advanced weaponry, has led to an epidemic of mass shootings and gun violence in our society. Change is needed.

The Second Amendment should be amended to make it clear that gun control is lawful and that gun ownership is not an individual right. This change can be coupled with laws that restore public safety with respect to guns. Examples could include a ban on semi-automatic weapons and requiring education, training, and background checks before gun ownership. By restoring balance to the Second Amendment, we can have a safer society while maintaining personal liberties. One hopes our current political environment will evolve to make this future possible. 



The Second Amendment

Video

Written Component

The second amendment to the Constitution grants citizens of the United States of America the right to bear arms. The reason behind the passing of the second amendment was to prevent the need for the United States to maintain a standing army. Many U.S citizens feared that if there were a standing army, the government would use soldiers to oppress citizens. This fear was generated because of the British troops occupying several parts of America at the time. The Quartering Act obliges U.S citizens to allow wandering troops to remain on their properties, causing unnecessary complications in the lives of many U.S colonists. These troops were viewed as a burden and citizens feared that members of a standing U.S army would abuse their liberties just as so. In order to prevent soldiers from causing harm to U.S citizens, the Framers decided that the government should only be allowed to raise full-time, paid army troops when needed to fight foreign opposition. For other needs such as protection from invasions, the government would rely on a citizen led militia. This militia would be made up of men supplying their own weapons in order to protect the nation. 

The original purpose of the second amendment was to allow citizens to bear their own weapons when serving in the military forces in the United States. However, the most common interpretation is that the amendment grants all citizens the right to keep and bear arms. This amendment can be easily misunderstood because of lack of clarity. Legal scholars often argue that, because of the lack of clarity, the amendment is able to be interpreted in multiple ways. If I were to explain the second amendment to someone in conversation, I would explain that it grants all U.S citizens the right to bear arms. While I do not believe that this was the original purpose of the amendment, I do believe that this is how it reads. If I were to offer a slight change in the second amendment, I would suggest more specific wording in order to directly relay the purpose. However, because of recent events and increase in gun violence, I do not believe that average citizens should be offered the right to bear arms at all, and I would limit the amendment to those serving in governmental organizations such as the military or the police force.   

 

Molly – The Second Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Bill of Rights was created following the American Revolution and the creation of the Constitution. The Second Amendment was crucial because the Founding Fathers wanted to legally give Americans the right to protect themselves and their security through the use of firearms and weapons. The amendment is responding to the desire for protection amongst the American people against unlawful violence. Most people understand the Second Amendment as being the individual right to bear arms. There is some divergence between who this right belongs to as some believe it is the right of the people while others believe it is the right of militia organizations. 

 

As for matters of debate about the Second Amendment, some believe that there is room for flexibility due to the evolution of weaponry. These legal scholars believe that, as the world evolves, gun control is increasingly necessary to provide order in society. Scholars that believe there should be regulations make the point that gun control isn’t exactly a new concept because, during the Founding Era, there were laws that regulated weaponry.  These laws banned untrustworthy people from possessing guns and required people to have guns that were appropriate for military service. Ultimately, the Second Amendment is about ensuring public safety. Others, however, believe that this amendment should be followed rigidly. They maintain the belief that the right to bear arms shouldn’t be restricted. The Second Amendment is like the First Amendment in that it is an inalienable right that everyone has. Gun control laws, while they aim to save lives and prevent crime, ultimately infringe on the individual freedom that all American citizens have. District of Columbia v. Heller demonstrates is just one example of the issues that come about with this debate. This case is illustrative because it shows how gun control may be violating the Second Amendment. Heller, a D.C. special police officer, was allowed to have a firearm when on duty but he wasn’t allowed to get a license for a handgun to keep at home. He argues that needing a license for a personal firearm infringes on his Second Amendment rights as an American citizen. 

 

This provision connects to the theme of individual rights that come up very often during the course of history. I think the most persuasive matter of debate is the argument that advocates for gun control because of the danger that is posed to so many people without gun control. With the increase of gun violence in America, better gun control laws are incredibly necessary and strictly abiding by the Constitution as time and technology evolve just isn’t viable.  This amendment is already such a major topic of discourse in America, especially today with the rise of gun violence. I would say to advocate for your beliefs on this amendment, go to protests and, most importantly, educate yourself on the topic. I would suggest this adaptation because it is incredibly important to form your own opinion based on unbiased information and to support it.