2nd Amendment
“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.”
Historically:
The Second Amendment states that because a well-regulated militia is important for a free country's security, the people's right to own and carry guns should not be violated.
The origins of the Second Amendment can be traced back partly to the English Bill of Rights in 1689. It declared that protestants could have arms for defense as allowed by law, stemming from tensions over the English Crown's control of militias and efforts to disarm dissenters before the Glorious Revolution.
The American experience with militias and military authority also shaped the Second Amendment. In the Founding era, local citizen militias were crucial for defense, and standing armies were seen with suspicion. The Declaration of Independence listed King George III's abuses of military power. After the Revolutionary War, states like Pennsylvania and Massachusetts added arms-bearing rights to their constitutions to prevent standing armies during peacetime.
Mistrust of centralized military power and concerns about individual liberty influenced the debate during the Constitution's ratification and the need for a Bill of Rights. The Constitution gave Congress power over the army and militias, but Anti-Federalists worried this could lead to federal overreach.
James Madison, a Federalist, believed state governments could counterbalance a federal army with armed citizens. Some states proposed amendments to protect arms-bearing rights, leading Madison to draft the Second Amendment. It was modified during debates, with the version sent to the Senate emphasizing the importance of a well-regulated militia and an individual's right to bear arms.
The Senate made further changes, removing the religious-objector clause and refining wording. The final version emphasized the necessity of a well-regulated militia for a free state's security and protected an individual's right to bear arms. This version was agreed upon and sent to the states in 1789.
Its evolution to modern day:
The nature of the Second Amendment's protection has sparked debates between those who believe it safeguards an individual's right to own firearms and those who argue its relevance is confined to military contexts, such as the National Guard. Notably, this discussion didn't emerge until long after the Bill of Rights was established. Initially, conversations centered on whether the Second Amendment added substantial value to the original Constitution. However, perspectives evolved due to changes in laws, the Constitution, and the regulation of firearms.
Concerns about large standing armies were prominent among the Founding generation. Their historical observations led them to believe that powerful governments often utilized armies to suppress citizens. To counter this, they contemplated restricting the government's use of armies to specific purposes, like foreign conflicts. For domestic situations, they considered a militia composed of ordinary citizens with their personal weapons and basic training.
While the idea of a militia held appeal, it was fraught with challenges. Not everyone believed militias could replace a professional national army. Additionally, militias were considered fragile due to issues with training and efficiency. This dilemma prompted the Constitutional Convention to grant the federal government authority to maintain armies even in times of peace, to avoid reliance solely on militias. Yet, this raised concerns about federal control over state defenses.
Two choices emerged: empower state-controlled militias, albeit weaker ones, or opt for a more centralized federal militia that might not effectively guard against federal tyranny. The Convention left this quandary unresolved, allowing for a militia's existence while granting Congress the power to regulate it, akin to raising armies.
This shift from state to federal control alarmed Anti-Federalists, who worried that federal dominance over militias would undermine states' defense against federal oppression. James Madison countered that the new federal structure differentiated it from Europe, and an armed populace would be difficult to subdue even by a federal army. He emphasized the significance of local governments and people's loyalty to them.
Both Federalists and Anti-Federalists concurred that the federal government held authority over the military and militia, and agreed that disarming citizens was not advisable. The central debate centered on whether an armed citizenry could safeguard liberty.
The Second Amendment aimed to address these concerns by recognizing the right to bear arms, in part as a concession to Anti-Federalists who feared an overreaching federal government. However, it didn't curtail federal military power. Its acceptance aligned with the notion that the government should neither disarm people nor curtail freedom of speech or religion.
Over time, circumstances shifted. Traditional militias waned, state-based militias merged into the federal military, and the federal military grew stronger, reducing perceived threats. This raised questions about the relevance of an armed citizenry, especially considering advancements in firearms.
Gun laws evolved as well. During the Constitution's framing, gun control laws were rare. Concerns revolved around the federal government disarming citizens to prevent resistance against political abuses. While this scenario didn't occur, new laws aimed at curbing firearm misuse were enacted, sometimes impacting law-abiding citizens' self-defense.
The introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment added a layer of complexity. By extending most of the Bill of Rights to the states, it raised questions about the Second Amendment's role in state-level regulations.
Historically, courts largely overlooked the Second Amendment. Yet, landmark cases in 2008 (Heller) and 2010 (McDonald) recognized an individual's right to possess firearms for self-defense. Nevertheless, these rulings were confined to specific situations, such as owning handguns at home, leaving questions about less restrictive gun control measures unanswered.
Courts have since grappled with interpreting the Second Amendment across various contexts. Certain regulations are presumed not to infringe upon the right to bear arms, while those severely limiting self-defense rights undergo stricter scrutiny. Courts have also wrestled with issues like carrying firearms in public and striking a balance between public interest and individual liberties, akin to debates about free speech.
As the Supreme Court continues to weigh the significance of the Second Amendment, more challenges related to gun control are expected to emerge, reflecting the ongoing discourse on balancing individual rights with collective safety.
DC vs Heller (2008)
Before the Supreme Court's District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the District of Columbia had strict rules on owning and using guns. These rules effectively banned handguns. The case reached the Supreme Court in 2008 when six D.C. residents argued that these laws violated their Second Amendment rights. They believed the Constitution allowed them to own functional firearms for self-defense at home.
In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment indeed protects an individual's right to own guns for lawful purposes. The Court looked at the meaning of the Second Amendment's phrases and clauses. They concluded that "the right of the people" means an individual right, and "to keep and bear arms" refers to possessing and carrying weapons for self-defense.
The Court also examined the historical context and found that the Second Amendment was meant to preserve an individual's right to own guns. They clarified that this right is not unlimited and mentioned that certain regulations, like preventing firearm possession by felons or restricting guns in sensitive places, are lawful.
The Court applied this interpretation to the D.C. firearm laws and ruled that the ban on handguns and the requirement to keep guns inoperable at home were unconstitutional. They stated that owning guns for self-defense is a key aspect of the Second Amendment, and the D.C. laws violated this right.
Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Stephen Breyer wrote dissenting opinions. Stevens believed that the Second Amendment was tied to militia-related firearm use and that the majority's interpretation went against the historical context and purpose of the amendment. Breyer suggested evaluating gun regulations based on balancing the government's public safety concerns with Second Amendment rights, and he believed the D.C. laws were constitutional because they served compelling public-safety interests.
In conclusion, the Heller decision clarified that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns for lawful purposes, including self-defense at home. However, the Court also acknowledged that certain gun regulations can be lawful under this interpretation.
Post DC vs Heller:
The Supreme Court's decision in Heller raised several important questions about the scope of the Second Amendment. The case left uncertainties about the level of scrutiny that should be applied to laws related to the right to own and carry guns and whether this right extends beyond just keeping firearms for self-defense at home. Another question emerged regarding whether the Second Amendment's protections apply to individual states as well.
The Supreme Court had earlier cases that established the Second Amendment as a limitation on federal government actions, not states. However, the Heller decision did not thoroughly explore how the Fourteenth Amendment could incorporate the Second Amendment to the states. The Court revisited this question in McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010, ruling that the Second Amendment does apply to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The McDonald case centered on challenges to local ordinances in Chicago and a nearby suburb that banned handgun possession. The Court's decision was not unanimous, but the plurality opinion written by Justice Alito found that the right to keep and bear arms was a fundamental right that the Fourteenth Amendment protects. The Court referred to historical context, including the importance of self-defense and the framing of the Second Amendment, to support this conclusion.
Justice Thomas, who provided the deciding vote, wrote separately to argue that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should be the basis for applying the Second Amendment to the states.
Justice Breyer and Justice Stevens wrote dissenting opinions. Justice Breyer raised concerns about transferring regulatory authority from elected legislators to courts and disagreed that the Second Amendment should be seen as a fundamental right. Justice Stevens focused on the specific liberty interest asserted in the case and expressed doubts about the Second Amendment's applicability to the states.
Between the McDonald case in 2010 and the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen case in 2022, the Supreme Court only issued one more decision related to the Second Amendment. In Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Court clarified that the Second Amendment applies to the states and covers modern weapons not existing during the time of the Amendment's drafting.
After Heller and McDonald, lower courts faced numerous challenges to gun laws. They developed a two-step framework to analyze these cases. First, they assessed whether the law in question burdened protected conduct under the Second Amendment, often by looking at historical context. If the law burdened protected conduct, the court then determined whether it should be subject to strict or intermediate scrutiny, based on how severely it impacted the core of the Second Amendment. Different courts had varying views on what constituted the core of this right and whether it extended beyond home protection. Using this framework, lower courts upheld many firearms regulations, often applying intermediate scrutiny.
This ongoing dialogue has shaped how the Second Amendment is interpreted and applied in different legal contexts.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen
The Supreme Court's 2022 case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, centered on the constitutionality of a part of New York's handgun licensing system concerning concealed-carry licenses for self-defense. The laws in question required New York residents to obtain a concealed carry license if they wanted to carry a firearm in public. These licenses were typically only granted if the applicant demonstrated a specific need for self-protection that was distinct from the general community's need.
The lower court upheld these laws using a two-step approach, combining historical context with means-end scrutiny. However, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, overturned this ruling. The majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, rejected this two-step approach. Instead, it emphasized focusing solely on the text and history of the Second Amendment. The Court set forth a test where if an individual's conduct is covered by the Second Amendment's text, it is presumptively protected. The government must then show that its regulation aligns with the historical tradition of firearm regulation before a court can conclude that the conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's protection.
The majority then examined whether the Second Amendment's text covered carrying firearms in public. They concluded that it did, as the term "bear" naturally includes public carry. As a result, the Second Amendment likely guarantees the right to carry arms in public for self-defense.
The majority also provided guidance on how to assess historical firearm regulations in the modern context. They acknowledged that historical analogies could be used to determine whether modern regulations align with historical regulations. The majority suggested using metrics like how and why a regulation burdens a law-abiding citizen's right to armed self-defense. They gave examples of modern laws, such as those barring firearms in sensitive places like schools, that could pass this historical analogy test.
The majority cautioned against over-interpreting early English law and emphasized that post-enactment history should not be given more significance than the original meaning of the constitutional text. They refrained from stating whether the relevant historical understanding should be pegged to 1791 or 1868, as the public understanding was likely the same for both regarding public carry.
With this framework and guidance, the majority conducted a historical analysis. They considered various laws from England and the United States put forth by the respondents. Ultimately, the majority concluded that the respondents did not establish an American tradition justifying New York's proper-cause requirement. While they acknowledged some historical restrictions on public carry, they argued that American governments had not broadly prohibited carrying firearms for personal defense or required special needs for public carry.
Justice Samuel Alito concurred with the majority and clarified that the decision did not overturn prior cases. Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, agreed with the majority but clarified that states could impose licensing requirements for public carry based on objective criteria. Justice Kavanaugh reminded that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a separate concurrence highlighting open questions about the role of post-ratification practice and the benchmark year for historical analysis.
Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, dissented. They criticized the majority's exclusive focus on history, arguing it disrupted legal consensus and created practical difficulties. The dissent believed the majority's approach would fail to provide clear answers and burden judges and courts with parsing history.
To Be Continued…
Authors note:
Throughout my life, I've heard a lot about the enthusiasm surrounding this particular right. It seems to be the one that most people are familiar with. But what we need to understand is that our government system relies on all of us playing an active role for it to work properly.
As Benjamin Franklin said, “A republic if you can keep it.”
To be an effective participant, it's crucial to have a good grasp of the entire Constitution. This part of the website is here to help us achieve that. Gaining knowledge is like arming yourself, and you should approach this endeavor with wisdom, honor, and intelligence. It's important to emphasize that using force should always be a last resort.
Saying that we've exhausted our efforts is not accurate. We haven't really tried yet. Our country has the best government system ever created, but for it to work properly, we need to actively engage in it. Are we doing that? Voting might feel like participation, but it's more like watching from the sidelines. It's like choosing which team will win the Super Bowl – it's not the same as being in the game. Voting isn't fully taking part in how we govern ourselves.
Let's stop being passive observers, educate ourselves, and actively engage in our system of self-governance.
(If you feel we have missed something regarding this amendment and can provide source and reference. Please let us know on the contact us page.)
