One of the most controversial Amendments to the United States Constitution in the modern era is surely the Second Amendment. Given that the United States has one of the longest standing constitutions that has been in continuous effect, it is no surprise that some of the language and principles as applied in those Amendments from the original document, would change in nature in the modern era. This has been what has been so difficult when debating these older Amendments is trying to decipher what exactly the founding father’s intent was in relating these issues to modern problems versus the problems that they were facing in the colonial era. The Right to Bear Arms is what the Second Amendment protects. What is important to understand about this is that when the United States was being formed, there was a lot of fear pertaining to a strong central government that would potentially mimic the harsh monarchy that had existed in England at that time, (“Debate: Has the Right to Bear Arms Outlived Its Usefulness?”). Thus, there was a push for the Americans to be able to defend themselves against unwanted invasions from government troops and the like, (“Debate: Has the Right to Bear Arms Outlived Its Usefulness?”). This is the language in which the Second Amendment was primarily derived. That being said, how the Second Amendment is being interpreted and debated in the modern era is truly appalling and bordering on the edge of not being constitutional due to the increased amount of government interference that has resulted from all of the unfortunate school shootings that have transpired within the United States.
Having seen a great deal of the world, I can attest that the United States has one of the largest issues with school shootings outside of the war zones in the Middle East. Where these school shootings come from are a wide variety of factors including: ridicule at schools, availability of guns, and lack of supervision by the parents. In fact, the majority of the weapons used by these troubled youths were stolen from their parent’s gun collection. In reflecting back to Columbine in Colorado, there was an enormous push to regulate how the United States makes gun access possible for their citizens in order to observe the Second Amendment. There has been an enormous effort in recent years to explore how the federal government can successfully regulate those who have access to guns while protecting the rights as outlined in the Second Amendment.
Where the federal government has had a great deal of trouble is in reference to more conservative states that protect the Second Amendment as if it were their own child. These states want the right to stay and the constitution to be protected, while the federal government is wrestling with the notion that we have one of the highest school shooting rates in the world due to the availability of guns in the United States getting into the wrong person’s hands, (“Debate: Has the Right to Bear Arms Outlived Its Usefulness?”). Thus, where does one draw the line pertaining to constitutionality? The issue is that we have to understand how to interpret the Second Amendment with the original framer’s intent while applying it to the issues that we are facing in the modern era, which is no easy task.
Even though I agree that we have a major issue in the United States pertaining to who has access to guns and who is using them for negative and horrific event such as school shootings, we have to look at this issue from a legal lens. This is where non-lawyers do not understand because we have to separate emotion from the equation and ascertain whether the Second Amendment is currently being protected constitutionally speaking by the federal government interfering with the rights that the Amendment is trying to protect? This raises many complex legal issues because the federal government has to balance how they are regulating this Amendment so that the constitution is not violated. Let’s take the provision to require people to get permits for guns. Arguably, this provision is not constitutional because it is modifying the explicit right to bear arms that is outlined in the constitution. The reason for this is that the federal government is denying some citizens the right to bear arms according to their discretion, which is not what the original framer’s intended. In fact, this is not the first time the federal government has done this in the United States given that there are many instances where the federal government has pulled legal maneuvers in either the liberal or conservative direction in order to promote social process. When we typically see this transpire is when society demands justice for atrocities that have transpired. Examples of this can be seen in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001 or during the Civil Rights Era.
Where this debate of social purpose applies to the Second Amendment is in a unique way because the federal government is trying to tweak this Amendment in order to protect citizens, (“Debate: Has the Right to Bear Arms Outlived Its Usefulness?”). However, where they are running into problems is that many citizens of this country want their Second Amendment Rights and do not condone what the federal government is doing. From a constitutional law lens, the federal government is infringing on the citizen’s constitutional rights by making legislation that restricts the Right to Bear Arms by using the recent school shooting trend to do so. Thus, even though I am not an active supporter of the National Rifle Association or the Second Amendment, I can recognize the valid legal arguments that are presented by conservatives when trying to defend their rights to purchase a horrific pistol and hang it on the mantle of their fireplace at their hunting lodge in the event that there is an intruder like the old days of Colonial Soldiers and the Wild West.
Works Cited
“Debate: Has the Right to Bear Arms Outlived Its Usefulness?” Intelligence Debates: NPR. 21 November 2013. Web. 6 April 2016.
