Second Amendment Vs Gun Control

The Second Amendment; Gun Rights versus Gun Control Our government is involved in a balancing act which deals with gun rights versus gun control. O’Connor explains that “There has been a longstanding dispute about whether the Second Amendment had been written to assure for the preservation of a well-trained militia, or whether the right to own a weapon also extended to ownership for private use” (110). One side believes the Second Amendment was written to form a militia during the early years of our country and does not mean everyone may own firearms. Then, there are those who believe in favor of gun rights and believe the Second Amendment explicitly grants them those rights. To express an understanding of these two views, I will describe
crimes committed with guns, such as what happened at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech, and the Reagan assassination attempt. All of which led to public uproar in favor of gun control and sparked debate in gun rights activists. My goal for this paper is to explain why the Second Amendment has been hotly debated recently by Americans who want to protect a traditional right to bear arms and those who call for new gun control measures in the wake of shootings such as those at Columbine and Virginia Tech. To achieve this goal, I will first explain how the Second Amendment is defined as well as two of the most common beliefs that come from its interpretation. It is in understanding these two interpretations that we can come to see which side of the fence people stand on. Next, in understanding why this issue has been hotly debated recently, gun related crimes that have received national attention will be discussed. Also, in understanding this debate or balancing act between the two interpretations, pertinent Supreme Court Rulings and legislation will be discussed. To keep a sense of order I will explain opinions from gun control activists first (when possible), then from gun rights activists within each section, point by point, instead of separating them entirely within the paper. In closing I will discuss statistics which will further strengthen the need for common ground to be formed between the two sides of the debate. The debate over gun control versus gun rights begins with the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791, states: “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. Opinions vary on the term “militia.” Gun control activists believe militia was meant to explain that this was meant only for states to maintain an army. This is known as the collective belief or right, which gun control proponents stand behind. Cornell describes collective rights as “the right guaranteed not so much to the individual for his private quarrels or feuds as to the people collectively for the common defense against a common enemy, foreign or domestic” (199). The opposing interpretation that three out of four Americans believe is that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual to have a firearm (Schwartz 41). This individual belief is that the Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns, which is the stance that gun rights activists take. Thus, collective interests versus individual rights are another way of explaining the gun debate. Gun control activists attempt to dismiss the Second Amendment as “archaic, irrelevant, and claim it to be a collective right, granting the States the power to raise militias” (LaPierre 31). One gun control proponent’s belief held that the Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possible tyrannical government, and since we now have stealth bombers and the like, it is hard to imagine what people now need in their homes to serve that purpose (Sugarmann 30). In contrast, Cornell states that gun rights activists believe that, “Even though it is not realistic these days to think of our citizens having to form a militia against our government it is understandable that we should be able to defend ourselves against criminals” (29). LaPierre states “It is force against force, good against evil, and it is right” (153). In further understanding gun control it is also beneficial to understand that gun control is meant to be “regulations pertaining to gun ownership or operation imposed by some level of government” (Gun Violence and Gun Control 797). How strict or loose gun controls are, vary depending on what state a person resides in. Citizens living in states that embrace individualistic model of arms bearing have even more protection for gun rights. In contrast, states favoring the collective model enact highly restrictive gun control legislation (Cornell). There has been a number of gun related crimes recently that have sparked an interest in gun legislation.
Any time a disturbed gunman opens fire and harms people, the public starts to wonder how this could have been prevented. “Inevitably, there are calls for tougher gun control, and routinely they are followed by arguments about Second Amendment rights, along with protestations that “guns do not kill people; people do” (Schwartz 41). It is after tragedies such as what happened at Columbine High School and the Virginia Tech massacre that it becomes evident how divided Americans are when it comes to guns. After tragedies committed with guns, people’s emotions run high. At these times more legislation is brought to Congress or State Legislatures. No matter how strong emotions are running in the wake of tragic crimes committed with guns, resistance is very strong from gun right activists. In favor of gun right activists, in 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft affirmed that the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment is to protect individuals rights (La Pierre
33). Besides mass shootings, other events have resulted in stricter gun control measures. These include the spread of gun related crime and the assassinations of political leaders (Gun Violence and Gun Control). One such incident was the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981. This failed assassination brought about the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, also called the Brady Bill, which, after much debate and revision in Congress, was finally signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993. The Brady Bill required a five-day waiting period for handgun purchases in order for a background check to be able to clear a prospective buyer. One provision in the law was that the five day waiting period would last for only five years, after which an immediate computer check would be performed. This five year period also gave states time to upgrade their computerized criminal records. Spitzer explains that, “While this bill was in the process of being accepted and reformed in Congress, opponents including the National Rifle Association challenged its constitutionality. The NRA opposed the measure, saying that it would simply be a prelude to stronger regulation, that it would not stop criminals from getting guns, and that it merely inconvenienced those entitled to guns. First, the bill was stalled by House members fearing to vote for it due to the “aggravation factor” associated with the NRA (Spitzer 127-131).
This is a strong indication of the power the NRA possesses. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is an avid proponent of gun rights which stands strongly behind the individualist belief. Spitzer explains the NRA as “The prototypic single-issue interest group in America…dominating gun politics for most of the twentieth century” (75). The group is one of the strongest allies for gun rights and has tremendous political power. One member of Congress noted that, “It’s a lobby that can put 15,000 letters in your mailbox overnight and have people in your town hall meetings interrupting you” (Spitzer 132). Swartz explains that “supporters of gun control say that the strength of the National Rifle Association in many states makes it nearly impossible to even discuss laws targeting illegal guns…they are a powerful group with about four million members nationwide, a twenty million to thirty million lobbying budget, and a strong youth group raising a new generation of members (42). Moderate and Democratic states, where the NRA is less influential, have voted for the greatest number of gun control laws (Spitzer 131). One other major incident of gun violence occurred at Virginia Tech on 16 April 2007, in Blacksburg, Virginia. In two separate attacks, approximately two hours apart, the perpetrator killed thirty two people and wounded many others before committing suicide. The massacre is the deadliest peacetime shooting incident by a single gunman in United States history, on or off a school campus. Tushnet explains that the New York Times editorialized in favor of “stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage” (132). Opponents of gun control argued that Virginia Tech’s “gun-free safe zone” policy ensured that none of the other students or faculty would be armed, and that as a result they were unable to stop the shooter (LaPierre 39). LaPierre explains how Suzanne Hupp, a woman who was a victim in a mass shooting and lost her parents; stated that, “Concealed-carry laws translate to saving lives which should be a choice that should not be forbidden” (55). Legislation was passed in which Congress was able to close a loophole that allowed the shooter to purchase handguns without detection by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (Schwartz 43). This system requires states to automate lists of people prohibited from buying firearms, including the mentally ill and put them in the federal database. The 20 April 1999 Columbine High School massacre was one of the most shocking in a series in high school shootings that occurred during the late 1990’s (Spitzer 132). The massacre resulted in thirteen deaths not including the gunmen, as well as another twenty-three injured. Guns used in this crime were purchased by private sellers who were exempt from background check requirements…gun purchases were made by a friend, acting as a “straw buyer”, a practice outlawed in some states, but not Colorado (Gun Violence and Gun Control 805). These shootings resulted in calls for more gun control measures. Federal and state legislation was introduced that would require safety locks on firearms as well as ban the importation of high-capacity ammunition magazines. A Juvenile Justice bill was sent to Congress with several gun control measures. An article in Social Issues in America explains that, “A bill was passed requiring background checks at all gun show sales, flea markets, and pawn shops (“closing the gun show loophole”); revocation of gun ownership for those convicted of gun crimes as juveniles; tougher penalties for juvenile offenders who used guns in crimes and anyone who provided the guns; and sale of locking devices or boxes with all new handgun purchases while blocking legal immunity to those who sold guns to felons and banning the import of high-capacity ammunition clips (that hold more than ten bullets)” (805).
The final package was approved by a 73-25 vote. However, the Senate-passed bill failed to be passed by the House. The influence of the NRA once again appears to have a strong influence on the death of the bill. The NRA spent $750,000 on mass mailings and $300,000 on phone banks to divert attention away from gun control measures (Spitzer 133). The influence of the NRA, as well as declining public interest as schools let out, most likely all contributed to this bill losing steam. The bill’s death may also be an example of Americans losing interest quickly in things that are not in the mainstream news. “Despite the lack of Supreme Court Intervention, gun control has remained a hot button issue in the Federal and State Legislatures” (O’Connor 108). One important case was that of U.S. v. Miller (1939) in which the Supreme Court ruled that gun regulations in the National Firearms Act do not violate the Second Amendment, and the Amendment pertains only to citizen service in a government organized and regulated militia” (Gun Violence and Gun Control 799). The court turned in favor of a collective view of bearing arms is the right of a militia and not as an individual. O’Connor states that “For nearly seventy years following Miller, the court did not directly address the Second Amendment” (121). “In no fewer than thirty seven cases since U.S. v. Miller, Federal Courts of appeal “have analyzed the Second Amendment purely in terms of protecting state militias, rather than individual rights” (Spitzer 31). During this time many states imposed restrictions, and D.C. imposed a total handgun ban. This was challenged in the Supreme Court case of D.C. v. Heller (2008), where Justice Antonin Scalia ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a firearm for personal use (O’Connor 109 and 121). This turned the Courts view to the right to bear arms as being an individual’s right, which is where we stand today. Considerable research has been conducted regarding the relationship between gun violence and gun control measures. Sugarmann explains from the gun control activist’s viewpoint that “According to one prison survey, twenty seven percent got their handguns by doing nothing more strenuous than walking into a gun store and buying them, for first time offenders this number jumped to forty percent…young adults with a criminal history were twice as likely to acquire a deadly assault-type handgun than was a buyer without a rap sheet” (80). This strengthens the importance of the Brady Bill which requires a waiting period before purchasing a firearm. From the gun rights activist view, there appears to be evidence of a need to allow firearms for protection. One example can be seen in the United Kingdom. LaPierre explains that “Banning guns in the United Kingdom did not work. He further explains that the London Evening Standard reported on December 19, 2001, Gun crime in London is rocketing, with increases of almost 90 percent in some firearms offenses, Scotland Yard reported today. It gives practical proof positive-to the old expression, when they ban firearms, only the criminals will have guns” (153).
Price explains that after the town of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law in 1982 requiring each head of a household have a gun and ammunition at home, FBI statistics have show that crime has plummeted even years after the population has increased more than 275%.
Further evidence from Gun Violence and Gun Control states “On an annual basis, about 30,000 Americans are killed with guns each year, about 80,000 seriously injured…and an estimate in 2000 concluded that gun violence costs the nation a total of $100 billion annually in direct and indirect costs, including medical costs and lost productivity (805-806). The need for Americans to be able to protect themselves appears to be well documented. According LaPierre, Vice President of the NRA “Some 2.5 million times a year, according to well founded research, Americans defend themselves with firearms” (LaPierre 153). In contrast, Gun Violence and Gun Control states that “most analysts believe guns are used in legitimate self defense situations approximately 100,000 times per year” (806). The difference in figures and opinions reflects the vastness in the differing opinions as well as how high their emotions run. Nonetheless, there does appear to be a need for Americans to defend themselves and a need for regulation. The preceding statistics, along with examples of the obvious failure of banning firearms, and the number of firearms kept out of criminals hands due to the Brady Bill offers evidence for a need for a balance in
the two interpretations of the Second Amendment. This balance comes in the form of allowing people to own firearms, but with gun control measures intact to protect innocent people. It appears public opinion has similar beliefs regarding gun rights versus gun control with not one side being the majority. According to Swartz, “Recent Gallup polls show that only 38 percent of Americans think the most important way to combat gun violence is through stricter gun laws; 58 percent believe more should be done to enforce current laws instead, and more than two thirds oppose an outright ban on handguns” (41).

Works Cited
Cornell, Saul. “A Well Regulated Militia, The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America.” New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print.
“Gun Violence and Gun Control.” Social Issues In America, An Encyclopedia. Vol.3. 2006. Print.
LaPierre, Wayne. “Guns Freedom And Terrorism.” Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc, 2000. Print.
O’Connor, Karen, Larry J. Sabato, and Alixandria B. Yanus. “Essentials of American Government, Roots and Reform.” New York: Pearson Education, Inc, 2009. Print.
Price, Joyce Howard. “Town Orders Guns in All Homes.” The Washington Times (D.C.). 25 Nov. 2003. Web. 25 Nov. 2010.
Schwartz, Emma. “In Congress, The Uphill Battle For Gun Control.” U.S. News & World Report. 17 Mar. 2008. Web. 10 Nov. 2010.
Spitzer, Robert J. “The Politics of Gun Control.” Washington, D.C: CQ Press, 2004. Print.
Sugarmann, Josh. “Every Handgun Is Aimed At You, The Case for Banning Handguns.” New York: New York Press, 2001. Print.
Tushnet, Mark V. “Out Of Range, Why the Constitution Can’t End the Battle Over Guns.” New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.