Political Awareness

Understanding the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment: “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.”

Understanding the laws surrounding gun control, with their complex history and numerous controversies, is crucial for every citizen. The Second Amendment, crafted by the founding fathers, ensures a well-regulated militia for the security of a free state while also guaranteeing the individual right to bear and keep arms. As technology has advanced, more people voice opinions on the need for change in gun regulations for the modern world. In this article, we aim to provide you with a clear understanding of the history behind the creation of this Amendment, what this Amendment is, and its transformation through court cases that have shaped it into what it is today. This knowledge will empower you to participate in the ongoing debates about gun rights and regulations.

Key Clauses Explained Further

Prefatory Clause: States that a well-regulated Militia is necessary for the security of a free State. A militia is needed to ensure the nation’s safety.

Operative Clause: In the question of a person’s right to bear arms. This clause establishes the legality of a person’s ability to own a firearm.

 The Second Amendment

United States v. Cruikshank (1876): Limited the reach of the Second Amendment to federal laws.

After the Colfax Massacre, an event in which white supremacists attacked Black citizens, federal charges were brought against the supremacists under the Enforcement Act. A violation of the Second Amendment is also included in the charges.

The supremacists appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court held the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals or state governments, only to federal actions. Also, ruling that the right to bear arms is a pre-existing natural right and does not need to be granted by the Constitution.

Presser v. Illinois (1886) Confirmed the Second Amendment does not apply to state governments, only to Congress.

Herman Presser, a member of a German immigrant group, led an unauthorized, armed parade through the streets of Chicago, violating the State’s Military Code. This prohibited unauthorized military organizations from parading or drilling with arms in public.

Herman Presser was arrested and fined $10 for violating the state’s laws. When appealed to the Supreme Court, the ruling was upheld.

The reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s upholding of his conviction was that the Second Amendment applies only to the federal government. Therefore, it did not restrict a state’s authority to regulate private militias.

United States v. Miller (1939): Emphasized how the Second Amendment is connected to militia service, not individual gun ownership for private purposes. Jack Miller and Frank Layton were found transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas. Violating the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Miller and Layton argued that the National Firearms Act of 1934 violates their Second Amendment right.

National Firearms Act of 1934: A federal law that regulates specific types of firearms, requiring the firearm to be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. When the case was tried, the district court agreed, and it was dismissed.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): The first case to establish the Second Amendment as an individual right. However, this only applied to the Federal jurisdictions.

Heller, a police officer located in Washington, D.C., applied to register a handgun for the use of self-defense in his home. His application was denied due to the District of Columbia’s gun laws at the time. These laws ban private citizens from registering handguns and require them to unload, disassemble, or secure all legal firearms with a trigger lock. Heller believed that someone violated his constitutional right under the Second Amendment, so he filed a lawsuit in federal court. The judge dismissed Heller’s case, ruling that the Second Amendment does not grant individuals the right to own firearms for private use. Instead, it protects a collective right regarding militias.

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010): Made the individual right to bear arms recognized in all states and local governments.

Otis McDonald lived in a neighborhood where crime was high, and wanting to get a handgun for self-defense, he registered for a handgun permit. After his registration was denied by the City of Chicago, which prohibited handgun ownership, he filed a lawsuit.

This Lawsuit argued that Chicago’s ban on handguns was a violation of McDonald’s Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights. McDonald’s legal team cited the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller. However, the argument did not stand, as the court stated that Heller only applied to federal jurisdictions, while McDonald’s case used to state and local governments.

After the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed his case, McDonald appealed. Here, the Supreme Court ruled that Chicago’s handgun ban was a violation of the Second Amendment.

The decision of this case made the ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller now binding on state and local government levels.

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022): Established a new legal framework for evaluating gun laws.

Robert Nash and Brandon Koch applied for concealed carry permits in New York to carry handguns for self-defense outside of their homes.

New York, under its “proper clause,” required applicants to demonstrate a special. Individualized need for self-defense beyond that of the general public. This meant that a person needed to prove and document a specific threat that was present against their life or safety.

Nash and Koch were denied even though they had no criminal record, had completed firearms safety training, and cited personal safety concerns. However, they did not meet the state’s “proper clause” standards.

In response, Nash and Koch filed a lawsuit against the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Nash and Koch, stating that the “proper cause” requirements violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

Challenges and Ongoing Debates Involving the Second Amendment

1. The debate between individual versus collective rights.
2. Defining the constitutional limits on gun laws.
3. Defining where to ban carrying firearms (“sensitive areas” such as subways, schools, parks, or government buildings)
4. The inconsistency between state laws on guns can cause litigation confusion.
5. How gun laws may change due to technological or cultural shifts in society.

Conclusion

Culture, religion, and even age are factors that influence a person’s view on guns and the laws that apply to them. During the creation of this Amendment, fewer factors influenced the public. Now, we face a time when we must consider the shape these laws will take and the effect they will have on future generations.

Note: Political Awareness never authorizes its published communication on behalf of any candidate or their committees.