No other part of the U.S. Constitution is talked about more
than the Second Amendment.
Many people boldly assert their rights under that amendment,
often while worrying that the amendment is under attack.
If you
missed it, the Second Amendment has to do with the right to “keep and bear”
firearms.
Before you
stop reading, this column is not advocating or opposing gun control. It is about the Second Amendment, which has
become a central part of modern American life.
The Second
Amendment is one of the shortest, consisting of a single sentence: “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.”
That
seemingly simple sentence has given rise to an almost endless and heated debate
about just exactly what right it assures to the people. Its somewhat unusual grammar, especially the
overuse of commas, doesn’t make it any clearer.
Few argue
about a couple of reasons for its existence.
First, after
domination by the British that clamped down hard on many America colonists, the
framers of the Constitution wanted to make sure that the people had firearms
readily available to protect their country from such control by their new
government.
Second, the
right to own a gun was widely recognized, and the amendment meant to preserve
that right for the people – individual Americans.
Some argued
that the right only meant that a person could keep a gun for the purpose of use
in a militia to resist a force that would undermine the exercise of other
guaranteed rights.
Others said
that the individual right to keep a gun was inherent in being a free citizen of
the United States. For them, the Second
Amendment became the hallmark of the American concept of individual freedom.
It took 219
years before the Supreme Court, the body responsible for the last word on what
the Constitution means, settled the question.
In 2008, it
ruled that the Second Amendment put into the Constitution each person’s right
to own guns and carry them. It
overturned a law that effectively banned guns in Washington, D.C.
What about
the language on the need for a militia?
In effect, the Court said that people had the right to guns if for no
other reason than for use in a militia, but that was not the only basis for the
right.
Because the
debate over an individual’s right to own a gun had been settled, the decision
found favor with opponents of gun control, the National Rifle Association
proclaiming: “This is a great moment in American history.”
To those
favoring the more limited view, the decision looked partisan and ideological,
though they conceded that it is the binding answer. But it was not the end of the debate.
Some, like
the NRA, see almost any gun control law as a move to eliminate the right to gun
ownership. Limiting gun ownership, they
believe, may mean that the government will also erode other inherent American
liberties.
Some worry
that the federal government is becoming as undemocratic as it was under the
British in the 1770s. They seem to
believe that taxation is despotism, so guns must be kept ready.
Because the
Second Amendment embodies the concept of freedom, they say, it must not be
limited. For them, the right to gun
ownership is absolute.
While the
Court disappointed those who believed in a limited right to gun ownership and
pleased opponents of gun control, it did not adopt the absolute position,
writing: “Like most rights, the right secured by the
Second Amendment is not unlimited.”
It found that
history showed that “courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon
whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
It said that “nothing in our
opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the
carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government
buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial
sale of arms.”
After the Newtown school killings, President Obama has proposed
new gun controls, but none apparently going beyond the Supreme Court
ruling. His opponents say such proposals
erode freedom and, in their view, this one untouchable right.
The debate is now about whether the Second Amendment right
is so absolute that there can be no new limits or if the conservative Supreme Court
was right in finding that limits are allowed, even necessary.