https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/files/2014/05/secondamendment.png
Introduction
Throughout history, the second amendment has evolved and taken on many different meanings. The amendment has been left up largely to individual interpretation, as a result of the usage of commas in the original amendment. Although the definition of the amendment has arguably changed from its original intended meaning, many Americans regard the second amendment as an inalienable right, which has been backed up by two supreme court rulings. While the amendment, or the “right to bare arms”, actually began as a duty and was born out of a necessity for self defense, as America, and its governing bodies have changed, so has the need for self defense, standing militias, and private gun ownership. And so, the official definition of the second amendment is used today in support of private gun ownership, despite the amendment’s shift in meaning.
How Did the "Right to Bear Arms"
Become a Right?
Joyce Lee Malcolm, in her book To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right, in discussing the difference between a duty and a right, states, “a duty is an obligation, a right an entitlement. Certain duties entailed the exercise of particular powers and privileges. The Englishman’s peacekeeping obligations required him to own and use weapons. But he had no explicit right to weapons for either peacekeeping or self-defense.” (Malcolm).
The right to bare arms evolved from a necessity of the people, in England, for self-defense and originated as a duty. The people largely resented this 'duty', seeing as it was imposed on them by the crown and they had absolutely no say in the matter. Since the English would not have a standing army until the late 17th century, the people were obligated to act as law enforcement, to protect themselves, their family, and their property. Further, there were no repercussions for any harm that they inflicted upon their assailants, provided that the injuries were the caused by defensive actions and not criminal actions. It was also understood by the Crown that the people would own guns for protection, and therefore that every law abiding citizen owned a firearm.
Moreover, the people were expected to protect their neighbors as well as themselves and their personal property. The idea that the ruling force expected individuals to protect their neighbors and act as law enforcement can be traced back to the Middle Ages, where Catholic individuals were expected to look out for members of their parish, and even help them recover from theft and other losses. The Crown also required the people to watch the town gates, which were raised and lowered with dawn and dusk. Every Englishman was required to watch the gates, and in the event that the individual was unable or unarmed, they were required to hire someone to watch the gates on their "shift".
Moreover, the people were expected to protect their neighbors as well as themselves and their personal property. The idea that the ruling force expected individuals to protect their neighbors and act as law enforcement can be traced back to the Middle Ages, where Catholic individuals were expected to look out for members of their parish, and even help them recover from theft and other losses. The Crown also required the people to watch the town gates, which were raised and lowered with dawn and dusk. Every Englishman was required to watch the gates, and in the event that the individual was unable or unarmed, they were required to hire someone to watch the gates on their "shift".
Further, during the 17th century, the people were obligated to serve in militias, both official and unofficial by the Crown, largely to the discontent of the English subjects. However, the people circulated amongst themselves a common saying that they were free because they were armed. Since the monarchs were in favor of militias and standing armies, everyone was eventually required to be armed. The militia acted as a defensive force and were unable to leave the realm. However, the obligated soldiers decided when to listen to the King's orders, and were sometimes ineffective when it came to breaking up riots when they sympathized with the rioters. While the monarchs were in favor of militias, the people were fearful of the King's power. Moreover, everyone in the King's army was required to complete formal training, first with longbows and eventually with firearms.
The Crown quickly realized that it would be difficult to place restrictions on the distribution of firearms, and resorted to extreme measures. First, the monarchy restricted the use of handguns and crossbows for the poor, as it was decided that they were most likely to engage in criminal activity. Since the duty of the people to carry arms was not a right, the government maintained the right to disarm the people. The ruling forces also instated Game acts, which favored the use of firearms by the rich, who hunted for sport, and restricted hunting by the poor, for whom hunting was a necessity. However, the game acts only prohibited weapons used for hunting, and not the use of weapons in general.
Why Did the Crown Take Away the People's Guns?
“Their effect was to officially deprive a large portion of the male population of the legal right to carry firearms.” (Malcolm)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_England
During his reign, Charles II had to stabilize the power of the monarchy by giving the government back the 'power of the sword', and his challenge was to do so without making the people upset. Initially, Charles had no loyal army and no money to establish one. Further, the people were armed and angry. Charles decided to try to establish a loyal army despite these difficulties with the help of parliament, who would pass a militia act. This act would establish the king's right to establish a militia and also enact the rules that the army would follow. In addition to the official standing army, Charles established an army of private soldiers, comprised of volunteers. This private army eventually doubled the size of the standing army and was especially efficient for two reasons. firstly, the volunteers were very loyal to the king, and secondly, the army grew at no cost to the people.
Eventually, the royalists and other influential Englishmen began to fear the power of the volunteer army, and the power it gave to the king, and decided that they wanted it to be dismantled. There was a great debate over how to relieve the soldiers of their weapons and send them home. The army ultimately disbanded quietly, and with tax bonuses, although this process would take over a year to be completed.
Although the volunteer army was officially disbanded, Charles II still desired a professional and powerful army. Moreover, Charles and parliament wanted to crack down on the use of arms by the people, and decided to restrict footmen from carrying arms and even tried to track the production and sale of arms in the realm. As part of these restrictions, the monarchy ordered discharged officers who could not 'state their business' to be driven out in fear of a secret uprising. The standing army was then able and prompted to search and confiscate arms from the people that they deemed 'not a necessity or for defense'. By this time, the crown possessed full control of the arms trade and ordered all military men of the volunteer army, both past and present, to be exiled for six months. The people were ultimately left feeling dissatisfied and as though their power had been taken from them, and as a result of a widespread fear of tyranny, the people would eventually cling to their guns and establish the right to bare arms.
Eventually, the royalists and other influential Englishmen began to fear the power of the volunteer army, and the power it gave to the king, and decided that they wanted it to be dismantled. There was a great debate over how to relieve the soldiers of their weapons and send them home. The army ultimately disbanded quietly, and with tax bonuses, although this process would take over a year to be completed.
Although the volunteer army was officially disbanded, Charles II still desired a professional and powerful army. Moreover, Charles and parliament wanted to crack down on the use of arms by the people, and decided to restrict footmen from carrying arms and even tried to track the production and sale of arms in the realm. As part of these restrictions, the monarchy ordered discharged officers who could not 'state their business' to be driven out in fear of a secret uprising. The standing army was then able and prompted to search and confiscate arms from the people that they deemed 'not a necessity or for defense'. By this time, the crown possessed full control of the arms trade and ordered all military men of the volunteer army, both past and present, to be exiled for six months. The people were ultimately left feeling dissatisfied and as though their power had been taken from them, and as a result of a widespread fear of tyranny, the people would eventually cling to their guns and establish the right to bare arms.
The multiple meanings of the second amendment
The second amendment, as written in the constitution, reads “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.”
The use of commas in the original drafting of the second amendment has led to a widespread and longstanding debate as to the original intentions of the amendment by the founding fathers. One possible interpretation reads that the amendment protects the rights of the people to own guns, for the purpose of having a standing militia. Another interpretation includes the purpose of a standing militia but does not use it as a limitation on the possession of firearms. A third interpretation of the amendment attributes the possession of firearms to self defense. The unclear grammar and historical context in which the amendment was created has created conflict in America as to whether or not the government could reserve the right to restrict the use and acquisition of firearms by law abiding citizens. It is only in recent years that the debate was resolved by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court Decides
In 2008, the Supreme Court essentially ruled on an official 'definition' of the second amendment, which would alter the conversation, both politically and socially, on the right to own a gun. The case, The District of Columbia Et. Al. v Heller, was brought to court upon the following basis:
“District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home." (Reporter of Decisions 2008).
Essentially, Heller, a law enforcement officer, was denied permission to obtain a legal firearm and keep it in his home by the District of Columbia, and so he decided to sue on the grounds that their tight gun laws and restrictions violated the second amendment. The Supreme Court came to the decision that, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." While the original intentions of the amendment possibly ad probably included the clause referring to the militias because the right to bare arms was granted in order to preserve a free state, the Supreme court believed that it had enough evidence of the founding fathers referring to the amendment and self defense. Since the decision affirmed an individual's right to bare arms, absent of the need for a standing militia, the decision also severely restricted the Federal government's ability to regulate firearm possession and ownership, especially in the home.
in support of the Supreme Court decision, Johnson, Kopel, Mocsary, and O'Shea, in their book Firearms Law and the Second Amendment, articulated the reasoning behind the court's somewhat controversial and contested decision. They write, "First, just because gun regulations are assessed by reference to history and tradition does not mean that governments lack flexibility or power to enact gun regulations. Indeed, governments appear to have more flexibility and power to impose gun regulations under a test based on text, history, and tradition then they would under strict scrutiny. After all, history and tradition show that a variety of gun regulations have coexisted with the second amendment right and are consistent with that right, as the court said in Heller.” ( Firearms 802)Simply stated, the authors claim that although the second amendment is a right, the court can still rule on it's interpretations and issues regarding its interpretation. Further, the authors claim that the nature of the 'research' conducted by the court, rooted in historical contexts, actually gives the court increased flexibility regarding their ability to place the amendment into current contexts as well as the historical. Also in support of the court's decision and ability to make it, the author's quote a second case and plaintiff, McDonald, stating, "...The Heller test will be more determinate and “much less subjective” because “it depends upon a body of evidence susceptible of reasoned analysis rather than a variety of vague ethno-political first principles whose combined conclusion can be found to point in any direction of the judges favor.” (Firearms 801-802). This contribution simply states that the supreme court ruling did not favor and could not favor any one judge's personal beliefs, seeing as, again, the amendment and its intentions are so deeply rooted in historical context.
in support of the Supreme Court decision, Johnson, Kopel, Mocsary, and O'Shea, in their book Firearms Law and the Second Amendment, articulated the reasoning behind the court's somewhat controversial and contested decision. They write, "First, just because gun regulations are assessed by reference to history and tradition does not mean that governments lack flexibility or power to enact gun regulations. Indeed, governments appear to have more flexibility and power to impose gun regulations under a test based on text, history, and tradition then they would under strict scrutiny. After all, history and tradition show that a variety of gun regulations have coexisted with the second amendment right and are consistent with that right, as the court said in Heller.” ( Firearms 802)Simply stated, the authors claim that although the second amendment is a right, the court can still rule on it's interpretations and issues regarding its interpretation. Further, the authors claim that the nature of the 'research' conducted by the court, rooted in historical contexts, actually gives the court increased flexibility regarding their ability to place the amendment into current contexts as well as the historical. Also in support of the court's decision and ability to make it, the author's quote a second case and plaintiff, McDonald, stating, "...The Heller test will be more determinate and “much less subjective” because “it depends upon a body of evidence susceptible of reasoned analysis rather than a variety of vague ethno-political first principles whose combined conclusion can be found to point in any direction of the judges favor.” (Firearms 801-802). This contribution simply states that the supreme court ruling did not favor and could not favor any one judge's personal beliefs, seeing as, again, the amendment and its intentions are so deeply rooted in historical context.
“McDonald argues that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right that states should not be able to infringe. Chicago argues that states should be able to tailor firearm regulation to local conditions. The outcome of this case will affect the ability of states to regulate the possession of handguns in their jurisdictions and could have far-reaching effects on long-held conceptions of federalism.” (Kevin Jackson, Eric Johnson 2010).
Although the Heller case limited the federal government's ability to regulate individual ownership of firearms, many of the states still maintained their individual ability to regulate firearms, based upon the needs of the state. However, Chicago, according to the law, virtually maintained a ban on handguns by restricting and prohibiting the use of unregistered firearms. Further, Chicago restricted the registration of most firearms. In his lawsuit, McDonald
Influential People and the Second Amendment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens
It is undeniably clear that those in power, and their words, have a significant impact on the opinion of the public. Justice John Paul Stevens, who ruled on the Heller case and was a dissenter, wrote an Op-ed for the New York Times in March 2018, in which he called for the repeal of the second amendment. In his statement, Stevens was responding to the anti-gun rallies held by students in response to mass shootings in schools, particularly the Parkland shooting. In his argument against the court's decision and the second amendment's new meaning, Stevens states, "Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “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.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.”( Stevens 2018). Though the court upheld its decision that the amendment protected the right to bare arms, independent of the need for a standing militia, based upon the historical contexts in which the amendment was applicable, Stevens claims that the historical context and obvious intentions of the second amendment were not considered. Stevens also goes as far as claiming that big corporations like the NRA, in seeking support for their personal agendas, perpetuated fraudulent ideas about the amendment, which ultimately affected the Supreme Court's decision in 2008. in connection with this claim, Stevens argues that the NRA uses the 'new' second amendment as a propaganda weapon against the people. The Op-ed also attempts to highlight the difference, as many anti-gun ownership parties do, between the caliber of weaponry available in the 18th century as opposed to the automatic weapons to which the public has access today, through the images of guns placed at the top of the article.
https://www.johnsoncitypress.com/Politics/2018/09/24/Trump-returning-to-Tennessee-for-Blackburn-Senate-fundraiser
Donald Trump
President Donald Trump frequently makes reference to the second amendment when discussing gun control and reform, however, he, in a similar fashion to the NRA, promotes false ideas about the amendment and the position of those lobbying for stricter gun laws. Through various platforms, including Twitter, the president makes broad claims about his support for loose gun laws and protecting the second amendment (below). This particular tweet was sent out in response to Justice Steven's Op-ed, although he failed to comment on the rallies held by the students across the nation. President Trump also falsely claims that Democrats want to repeal the second amendment, insinuating that gun reform is not possible while the second amendment still stands. Trump's adamant support for the second amendment also reflects his unwavering support from the NRA since the beginning of his campaign. Moreover, the NRA affected Trump's stance on gun reform, which is evident in his shift from advocating for increasing age limits for gun ownership to 21 years old to dropping the matter entirely.
President Donald Trump frequently makes reference to the second amendment when discussing gun control and reform, however, he, in a similar fashion to the NRA, promotes false ideas about the amendment and the position of those lobbying for stricter gun laws. Through various platforms, including Twitter, the president makes broad claims about his support for loose gun laws and protecting the second amendment (below). This particular tweet was sent out in response to Justice Steven's Op-ed, although he failed to comment on the rallies held by the students across the nation. President Trump also falsely claims that Democrats want to repeal the second amendment, insinuating that gun reform is not possible while the second amendment still stands. Trump's adamant support for the second amendment also reflects his unwavering support from the NRA since the beginning of his campaign. Moreover, the NRA affected Trump's stance on gun reform, which is evident in his shift from advocating for increasing age limits for gun ownership to 21 years old to dropping the matter entirely.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/28/us/politics/trump-second-amendment.html
A CNN article also cites president Trump's declaration that the Democrats want to repeal the second amendment in an article from February 2018, noting his shift from support for stricter gun laws to the demonizing of the Democratic party.
The video below shows yet another example of the rhetoric Donald Trump uses in defense of the second amendment, the NRA, and in opposition to stricter gun laws.
The video below shows yet another example of the rhetoric Donald Trump uses in defense of the second amendment, the NRA, and in opposition to stricter gun laws.
The National Rifle Association
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Keene
The National Rifle Association, or NRA, is one of if not the largest gun lobbies with the greatest influence on the gun debate today. it is also important to reiterate that the NRA currently has the backing of the president and is therefore better equipped to push their agenda in this administration. While the NRA was founded in 1871, the association had not been very involved in the political sphere and did not even have a lobby office. That changed as the men and women the organization represented demanded that the NRA step up to defend their rights in the the late 1960s. Since the NRA uses the second amendment as an integral part of their platform, it should come as no surprise that the president of the NRA is also an active supporter and outspoken proponent of the amendment. Former president David Keene often cited the second amendment in his speeches and also advocated for the emphasis to be placed on mental illness as opposed to restrictive gun ownership.
In an interview documented by CNN, Keene was outspoken about the NRA's platform, claiming the the NRA has evolved to become a defender of the second amendment.
On the homepage of one of the NRA's many official sites has a section at the bottom which aims to ‘explain’ and highlight the function of the second amendment, as it aligns with their agenda. The NRA also provides visitors of the site with secondary materials intended to educate their readers on their rights. However, the NRA cleverly weaves this information and highlights what is necessary for the advancement of their agenda. While the NRA does immediately present two, of many, links regarding the second amendment that are critical of the amendment, the majority of the material is in support of the amendment or seemingly neutral.
In an interview documented by CNN, Keene was outspoken about the NRA's platform, claiming the the NRA has evolved to become a defender of the second amendment.
On the homepage of one of the NRA's many official sites has a section at the bottom which aims to ‘explain’ and highlight the function of the second amendment, as it aligns with their agenda. The NRA also provides visitors of the site with secondary materials intended to educate their readers on their rights. However, the NRA cleverly weaves this information and highlights what is necessary for the advancement of their agenda. While the NRA does immediately present two, of many, links regarding the second amendment that are critical of the amendment, the majority of the material is in support of the amendment or seemingly neutral.
NRA second amendment attorney Guy Relford is an active proponent of the NRA and the people's right to bare arms. On NRATV, Relford and popular NRA show host Grant Stinchfield, discussed Australia's response to gun reform and their gun buyback program. Though Australia has effectively eradicated gun violence, Relford and Stinchfield claim that their success is actually a myth. Both men argue that crime rates in Australia have actually increased rather than decreased and that it is inevitable that some people will not and did not relinquish their guns, as the two men say they would do if a similar program was implemented in the United States. Relford, in the interview, also claims that the media and news outlets fail to mention the fact that most mass shootings and incidences of gun violence happen in gun free zones, where there are no "good guys with guns" combat the "bad guy". Further, Stinchfield argues that the country (America) was built off of the second amendment and that guns are necessary for protection against a tyrannical government. This point, although true of the historical origins of the amendment, feels antiquated and irrelevant, considering the fact that America's strong standing army would significantly out-gun any amount of armed citizens.
https://www.nratv.com/videos/stinchfield-guy-relford-the-wolf-is-out-of-the-sheeps-clothing
The Influence on the Public
The rhetoric promoted and distributed by some of the most influential people in the country, including the president, the NRA, and the Supreme Court Justices, has an undeniable effect on the public's understanding of the second amendment. While some individuals are moved to oppose the amendment and support strict gun reform, for the sole purpose of opposing the gun lobbies, others are compelled to support the amendment. The effect that these conversations have on gun rights in America is profound, seeing as the average American elects representatives into government who will either support unrestricted private gun ownership or stricter gun laws. Below are some examples from Twitter, Facebook, and bumper stickers of the public conversation on gun rights. Social media platforms act as a primary means for a lot of Americans of collecting information and news. It is also evident in these examples that a lot of the language in these tweets are directly appropriated from the aforementioned influential public figures, and the historical context of the amendments often misconstrues the definition of rights and duties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
References
Cillizza, Chris. 2018. “Donald Trump Stokes a Totally False Idea on the 2nd Amendment in CPAC Speech.” CNN: Politics.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/trump-cpac-guns/index.html
Jackson, Kevin. Johnson, Eric. 2010. “McDonald V. Chicago.” LII Supreme Court Bulletin.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-1521_0
Johnson, Nicholas J., Kopel, David B., Mocsary, George A., O’Shea, Michael P. 2012. “Applying the affirmed right to arms: the aftermath of Heller in the district of Columbia”. Firearms Law and the Second Amendment. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Keene, David. 2013.“NRA chief: Why we fight for gun rights.” CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/2013/01/31/opinion/keene-nra-guns/index.html
Malcolm, Joyce Lee. 1994.“A People Armed”. To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. Harvard University Press.
Malcolm, Joyce Lee. 1994. “The Dissidents Disarmed.” To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. Harvard University Press.
Relford, Guy. 2018. “Guy Relford: The Wolf is out of the Sheep’s Clothing- Australia’s Gun Buyback Under the Microscope.” NRATV.
https://www.nratv.com/videos/stinchfield-guy-relford-the-wolf-is-out-of-the-sheeps-clothing
Reporter of Decisions. 2008. “District of Columbia Et. Al v. Heller.” Supreme Court of the United States.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZS
Sullivan, Eileen. 2018. “Trump Says Second Amendment Will Never Be Repealed.” The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/28/us/politics/trump-second-amendment.html
Stevens, John Paul. 2018. “John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment.” The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html?smid=tw-share&module=inline
Twitter.com (accessed 12/08/18).
https://twitter.com/search?q=the%20second%20amendment%20&src=typd
US Constitution. Amendment II.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment
https://www.nraila.org/second-amendment/. (Accessed: November 13, 2018).
https://youtu.be/Fou-CjeZZZg
Cillizza, Chris. 2018. “Donald Trump Stokes a Totally False Idea on the 2nd Amendment in CPAC Speech.” CNN: Politics.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/trump-cpac-guns/index.html
Jackson, Kevin. Johnson, Eric. 2010. “McDonald V. Chicago.” LII Supreme Court Bulletin.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-1521_0
Johnson, Nicholas J., Kopel, David B., Mocsary, George A., O’Shea, Michael P. 2012. “Applying the affirmed right to arms: the aftermath of Heller in the district of Columbia”. Firearms Law and the Second Amendment. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Keene, David. 2013.“NRA chief: Why we fight for gun rights.” CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/2013/01/31/opinion/keene-nra-guns/index.html
Malcolm, Joyce Lee. 1994.“A People Armed”. To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. Harvard University Press.
Malcolm, Joyce Lee. 1994. “The Dissidents Disarmed.” To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. Harvard University Press.
Relford, Guy. 2018. “Guy Relford: The Wolf is out of the Sheep’s Clothing- Australia’s Gun Buyback Under the Microscope.” NRATV.
https://www.nratv.com/videos/stinchfield-guy-relford-the-wolf-is-out-of-the-sheeps-clothing
Reporter of Decisions. 2008. “District of Columbia Et. Al v. Heller.” Supreme Court of the United States.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZS
Sullivan, Eileen. 2018. “Trump Says Second Amendment Will Never Be Repealed.” The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/28/us/politics/trump-second-amendment.html
Stevens, John Paul. 2018. “John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment.” The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html?smid=tw-share&module=inline
Twitter.com (accessed 12/08/18).
https://twitter.com/search?q=the%20second%20amendment%20&src=typd
US Constitution. Amendment II.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment
https://www.nraila.org/second-amendment/. (Accessed: November 13, 2018).
https://youtu.be/Fou-CjeZZZg
