Introduction
Shoot out rampage involving guns has become a common incident in US, resulting in the loss of innumerable innocent lives. After the shootout in Connecticut elementary school in 2012, the recent mishap of a 5 years old boy gunning down his 2 years old sister in Kentucky has sparked the debate anew whether the Federal government should come up with a strong gun control law in regulating hand guns and firearms. The most savage opponent to federal gun regulations is the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the group strongly supporting the stance of federal regulations is Handgun Control Incorporated (HCI) reinforced by its affiliate association, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. According to NRA, the Second Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees an individual the fundamental right to possess and carry guns. Strengthening the gun control rules by the Federal government will result in the difficulty to own guns, intruding on Constitutional rights of civilians. They also argue that gun control will not reduce the rate of gun-related murder or violence. Rather if gun is outlawed, then only the outlaw will have guns and the common law abiding citizens would feel vulnerable in the face of danger. On the other hand, HCI argues that the Second Amendment does not authorize individuals the right to possess and carry guns. Rather, the uncontrolled ownership of guns by the civilians would escalate the number of injuries and murders caused by gun. This paper would discuss the issue further by highlighting the interpretations of the Second Amendment by NRA, HCI and the Supreme Court and how the ongoing debate has brought the overall situation to an impasse.
The Second Amendment and NRA
Adopted in 1791 in the Bill of rights, the Second Amendment states briefly, “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.” (Michael Kammen) Sir William Blackstone, an influential authoritative figure who has huge influence on the drafting of US Constitution, described the right to own and carry arms as an auxiliary right that reinforces the basic right to self-defense, resistance to domestic oppression and the civil right to engage in concerted activities in protection of the state. There are a slew of groups and organizations fighting against the federal regulations in order to protect the Second Amendment, the most reputed being the NRA. All of these groups share the same ideology and belief in the intent and objective of the Second Amendment. They believe that the right to own guns predates the formation of the Constitution and that the Second Amendment only purported to preserve and guarantee the pre-existing rights of an individual to protect his own right of self-defense and assist in concerted acts for the defense of the country and its citizens. Though the Constitution underscores the need for organized militia, but it was not self-evident from the drafts of the Constitution makers that the Second Amendment was to be restrained within a well-regulated militia. Rather they interpret that the framers of the Constitution wanted to empower the armed citizenry with the right to provide assistance in the common defense against foreign intrusion or a domestic oppressor.
The NRA and the organizations against federal regulations also oppose the registration of guns. They opine that any law that controls firearms and asks for registration encroaches upon our Constitutional rights. They further state that the government should engage in overseeing the enforcement of the laws that are already there and not waste time making new laws. NRA fears that if the Federal government begins to strengthen gun laws, then at one point of time the ownership of guns would turn into a difficult affair as can be seen in the countries like Japan, United Kingdom and Australia where due to the stringent gun laws, gun ownership is restricted and at times leads to confiscation of the firearms.
HCI and the Second Amendment
On the opposite side of the bandwagon is HCI which, along with its affiliate the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, claims that at the time when the Second Amendment was enacted by the Congress, some states were there with laws protecting the right to own guns. HCI opines that the Congress disputed the inclusion of the individual right to own and carry guns in the Second Amendment and hence the Constitution makers restricted the Second Amendment only to military purposes and national defense. HCI thus postulates that under the Second Amendment an individual does not have any right to keep arms for personal utility because the objective of the Second Amendment was to limit the use of guns solely to the purpose of national defense.
HCI completely differs from NRA in the interpretation of the Second Amendment. They observe that at the time of framing the Constitution in the 18th century, each of the states owned a militia constituted of ordinary civilians working as soldiers on part time basis. What is meant by "well-regulated' militia is that the civilian soldiers serving in the militia were required to go through proper training of handling their own firearms and were adept in military skills. It was a mandatory military service required to prepare the nation for fighting a foreign invasion and curbing internal riots. They further argued that the term 'militia' was not applied for all. The members of the militia were white males aged between 18 to 45.
HCI argues that a random access to guns by the civilians would result in more deaths from gunshot wounds. For instance, in USA when several thousands of teens and children die from gun shots every year, in United Kingdom where the gun law is stringent, the number of casualties of teens and children from gunshot wounds is hardly few in number. HCI also supports laws promoting the safety features of the guns like installing childproof locks on the triggers. HCI emphasizes that one should be protective of children and not guns and laws protecting children from random access to guns would only serve public welfare.
Supreme Court and the Second Amendment
Both NRA and HCI agree that the United States Supreme Court has the final authority to interpret the Second Amendment. Over the years there has been umpteen numbers of cases where the Second Amendment has been brought into the context. The cases held before the 20th century supported the individual right to possess and carry guns, but in the 20th century, the Supreme Court presented a different interpretation of the Second Amendment.
The first court case in which the Supreme Court spoke about the right to keep arms was Dred Scott v. Sanford in 1857. The most significant case that defined an interpretation of the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court is U.S. v. Miller in 1939. During this case, the Supreme Court thoroughly investigated the old files of the Congress in order to perceive why the Second Amendment was adopted into the Constitution. After examining all the old records of the Congress, the Supreme Court came out with the following statement:
"The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining, the militia, and for government such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the Officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." (Eugene Volokh)
The above statement issued by the Supreme Court makes it apparent that the objective of the Second Amendment was to uphold the national defense and hence one may conclude that the Second Amendment only protects the right of the 'militia' in carrying and owing guns.
An Impasse on Gun Control and the Rise of Gun Sale
Conclusion
In the wake of a lot of violent incidents involving guns, there are a lot of discussions and debates going on whether or not gun control laws should be strengthened. The words of the Second Amendment have been differently interpreted by every concerned party, the NRA, the HCI and the Supreme Court. Due to this ongoing debate, the situation involving the gun control law has reached an impasse when only words are being exchanged and no solid action is being undertaken. Personally I think owning and bearing arms is a constitutional right that the American citizens have been enjoying for over few hundred years. The laws mandating the installation of some safety features on the weapons should be enacted, rather than banning the use of guns altogether.
Works Cited
1. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms, Retrieved on 7th May 2013 from http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/fgd-guar.html
2. Gun Control and The Second Amendment, Retrieved on 7th May 2013 from http://iweb.tntech.edu/kosburn/history-201/second-amendment.htm
3. Tom Head, Does the Second Amendment Protect the Right to Bear Arms?. About.com Guide. Retrieved on 7th May 2013 from http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/i/2ndamendment.htm
4.Hayley Peterson, Wal-Mart SELLS OUT of guns as Americans rush to stockpile weapons in aftermath of Sandy Hook massacre, Retrieved on 7th May 2013 from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2251461/Walmart-sells-guns-Americans-rush-stockpile-weapons-aftermath-Sandy-Hook.html
5. NRA And The Second Amendment, Retrieved on 7th May 2013 from http://www.personal.kent.edu/~jdrake3/Design/SampleFrontPage/Government/Unit3/nra.htm
6. Michael Kammen, Documents on the First Congress Debate on Arms and Militia, Retrieved on 7th May 2013 from http://constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm
7. Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School, Sources on the Second Amendment and Rights to Keep and Bear Arms in State Constitutions, Retrieved on 7th May 2013 from http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm
