The Second Amendment to the US Constitution is a controversial topic, with debate over its meaning and who it applies to. The amendment protects the right to bear arms, but the interpretation of “arms” and “militia” is unclear. The debate continues, with some arguing for responsible gun ownership and others for stricter gun control. The Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller affirmed the individual right to bear arms.
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution is one of the most misunderstood and most discussed amendments in the Bill of Rights. Debate over this amendment intensified in the late 20th century, when organizations lobbying for gun control in the United States found themselves arguing with lobpro-guns over its precise meaning. The arguments revolve around what exactly the amendment means and who it should refer to. Unfortunately for scholars interested in the debate, few Supreme Court cases have tested it, making the intent of these charged words all the more difficult to analyze.
The text of the Second Amendment reads, in full: “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.” Several other drafts change the capitalization and punctuation, although the text remains the same. The crux of the debate is whether or not it allows individual Americans to own guns, especially firearms, and if so, what kind of firearms they can own.
There are different schools of thought on the amendment. The first believes that the law was framed as a matter of state rights, in the sense that it was intended to protect the right of individual states to form and arm militias. Others argue that because members of a citizen militia are required to equip themselves, the amendment protects the rights of individual citizens. A third school of thought is a compromise between the two, suggesting that people are permitted to keep and carry weapons related to militia duty.
Gun ownership and control are thorny issues in the United States. Organizations such as the National Rifle Association would like to promote responsible gun ownership for all American citizens who wish to own guns, while other groups believe that Americans should be able to own only certain types of guns, or none at all. The somewhat vague meaning of the Second Amendment has made discussing these issues very challenging, as the contents are open to interpretation.
The debate often questions the precise definitions of “people”, “arms” and “militia” in the text in the hope of having a clearer idea of the meaning of the amendment. Indeed, the concept of protected gun ownership existed in common law when the Constitution was written, and it is entirely possible that the authors left the amendment vague because they assumed that everyone was already aware that individual citizens could own guns. Exactly what “weapons” are is a matter of debate, however, as swords, spears and other weapons can also be considered “weapons” and military weapons in the 1700s were not comparable to those used in modern times.
The Second Amendment debate is unlikely to end anytime soon, even if it’s been tested by the Supreme Court, because gun control is such a sensitive issue in America. Many scholarly texts have examined the content and possible meaning of the amendment, and no matter how a person argues for it, he can likely find extensively researched academic material to support his point.
However, with all the debate, evidence, and opinion on the matter, the question was answered to some extent in a landmark case in 2008: District of Columbia v. Heller. In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court said that, like all other rights covered by the Bill of Rights, the right to bear arms is an individual right. It remains to be seen whether the debate will end with this decision.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
