The District of Columbia v Heller ruling on 26 June 2008 marked a landmark decision on the gun debate (Burkett, 2008). The Supreme Court said that a District of Columbia law that banned the ownership of usable firearms in a household was illegal because it violated the Second Amendment (Burkett, 2008). The Second Amendment has been an ignored part of the constitution for a long time but has become the center of gun debate in the modern days in the wake of increased gun violence. There has been an increase in the number of mass shootings that have left tens of people dead and many more injured. Many of the perpetrators of the mass shootings have been labeled as mental health patients. However, while it is clear that regulation of guns is important the constant debate over the second amendment has derailed this debate.
The second amendment is an ambiguous part of the constitution adopted in 1791 and has attracted different interpretations from different parts of the political divide (Vandercoy, 1994). The purpose of this paper is to establish the necessary actions that should be undertaken in regards to the increased gun violence. The paper argues that it is necessary to amend the second amendment to make it clear and easy to interpret. The paper further argues that repealing the second amendment will provide an all-around solution because the gun control problem is not a constitutional but a political one. Further, the amendment should include essential issues like a waiting period and background checks for purchasers. The paper starts by describing the history and rationale of the second amendment and the different understandings of the bill. The paper further describes the connection between gun regulation and the second amendment. Lastly, the paper will evaluate the impact of the NRA on existence the legacy media.
History and Rationale of the second amendment
The Bill of Rights is an important section of the constitution because it protects individual liberties against any political interference. The first amendment, for instance, deals the freedom of speech and gives citizens an opportunity to speak even with unpopular speeches (Hand, 2016). The second amendment guards United States citizens’ rights to possess and have firearms. The amendment was implemented on 15 December 1791 as a part of the Bill of rights (Vandercoy, 1994). For the longest time, lawyers and scholars believed that the second amendment provided states with the authority to form militias until the Heller ruling (Waldman, 2014). This could be because the second amendment is from a certain period. The framers of the amendment could not foresee the changes bound to occur in the modern day, which has led to many troubles in interpreting the words used in the second amendment (Hand, 2016). It is essential to understand the term militia from a perspective when the amendment was written. Waldman (2014) describes militia as military forces pinched from the society, a group of people “who owned property and worked on their lands” (p.6).
The two major founding groups were the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. While the Federalists supported a robust Federal administration, the Anti-Federalists preferred robust states’ rights and feared any oppression from the Federal government (Hand, 2016). Many people during this time believed that the government used different techniques to oppress them through the militia that they formed. After the ratification of America’s constitution, James Madison proposed the second amendment to empower the militia (Waldman, 2014). The Anti-Federalists supported a strong central government as long as there was a bill of rights that would protect their liberties, which included the right of possession of firearms (Hand, 2016). The ratification of the second amendment has been a source of arguments between two sides, which hold different views about the amendment. There is confusion in interpretation with a majority of individuals arguing for the view that favors them the most (Vandercoy, 1994).
Hand (2016) argues that during the ratification of the amendment, many people felt the need to protect themselves. There were no police forces, and many people had to protect themselves against hunters and any threat that they posed. However, in the modern day, the US military has grown in numbers and, nobody fears that they would turn against the US citizens. Further, the types of guns used during the ratification of the amendment are different from the modern types of guns. The changes over the decades are clear, which begs the question, is it time to repeal the second amendment? Maybe not.
Different interpretations of the second amendment
The second amendment maintains “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” (Hand, 2016). This statement has always been controversial and, many Americans cannot agree on the correct meaning and interpretation of the amendment. One section of individuals believe that the amendment caters for collective rights while another section believes that it protects individual rights (Chemerinsky, 2004). For those that hold a collective view believes that “every state has the right to maintain and train formal militias that will protect them against an oppressive federal government” (Chemerinsky, 2004). According to the advocates of the collective view, the phrase “well-regulated militia” means that only organized groups are allowed to carry firearms. Proponents of individual rights hold the view that every individual has the right to own guns without the interference of the federal government to protect them from any threats (Chemerinsky, 2004). This group maintains that the amendment was not meant to prevent any individual from owning a gun.
The different interpretations of the amendment have helped the firearm control discussions in America. The individualists such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) argue that every individual has the right to own guns without any restriction. The opposing groups feel that the second amendment fails to give every citizen the right to own guns. The latter group feels that it is important to regulate who owns a gun and what type of firearms are available to them (Chemerinsky, 2004). Despite everybody’s debate, the Supreme Court holds the right to make the essential decisions regarding the amendment. However, the Court has not said much about the amendment. In Heller, the Court claimed that every person had the right to own a gun even if they were not connected to any militia. In Caetano v. Massachusetts, the court held that “all instruments that consist of bearable arms are protected under the second amendment.”
The second amendment and gun control
The different interpretations of the second amendment from different avenues bring about problems in gun control. Further, in Peruta v. California, Peruta sought to carry a concealed gun without a permit, but the Supreme Court refused to hear his case (Waldman, 2014). The ruling of this case is an indication that the second amendment will only cover a gun holder in case they are using their firearms for protection within and not outside their homes. The ambiguity of the second amendment poses a challenge to the proponents and opponents of gun control (Waldman, 2014). Both sides do not seem to agree on whether there should be gun control or the second amendment should be respected disregarding the situations (Waldman, 2014). The continued period of push and pull between different parties has provided an opportunity for gun violence to escalate to high levels. America holds the highest number of gun violence in the developed world. Different developed countries adopted different laws and regulations to curb gun violence within their countries reducing their gun violence tremendously. However, America is stuck with high gun violence numbers because of the unclear second amendment.
Chemerinsky (2004) indicated that it is estimated that the economic costs of gun violence border $100 billion per year. According to Ludwig (2017), gun deaths contribute to life expectancy differences between majority and minority groups. The year 2017 witnessed many mass shootings wounding hundreds leaving others injured. However, opponents of gun control are dismissive of the statistics in determining the connotation and understanding of the second amendment. They argue that the framers of the amendment and not the social policy should be used to interpret the exact meaning of the amendment (Chemerinsky, 2004). Further, they claim that any change to the amendment will not affect the gun violence. They argue that the numbers of gun crimes will remain constant because the guns are not the main cause of the harms rather other issues like mental health of individuals involved in the gun violence.
Ludwig (2017) noted that adoption of compulsory waiting periods for anyone willing to purchase guns should decrease gun deaths by at least 30%. The main issue about gun control should not be about completely taking guns away from its citizen but reducing their ownership. The major proposals for gun control are background checks, more limitations for people living with mental illness and those involved in gun violence in the past and greater restrictions on particular types of guns and ammunition (Chemerinsky, 2004). This would help curb the gun violence and mass shootings that have been recurrent over the past years. However, the opponents of gun control are not keen to take these statistics into consideration when discussing gun laws.
It is not clear that completely erasing the second amendment will lead reduced gun violence in America. However, all these changes will not be possible without amendments to the second amendment to reduce ambiguity. It is important that the constitution of a country is respected at all times. However, when the constitution is not well understood, different parties can interpret it in a way that suits them most. This brings about the importance of an understanding of amendment to avoid infringing on the rights of particular citizens. An amendment will remove the ambiguity and necessary sections such as waiting periods (Ludwig, 2017) and background checks added.
Impact of National Rifle Association on existence and influence of legacy media
The NRA is a non-profit organization that advocates for gun rights for American citizens. The organization was founded in 1871 and have advocated for and against different gun laws. The organization has been the center of attraction on the gun control debate and advocates for the individualist view of gun ownership. The group has continued to influence policy about gun laws over the years and has become one of the most powerful influencers for politicians (BBC, 2016). According to an article in the BBC (2016), the NRA spends big sums of money to push for gun legislation among the legislators. The NRA remains opposed to any gun controls basing their arguments on the second amendment.
The media and the NRA have a complicated relationship. The media has been accused of portraying the NRA in the light of something greater than it is (Nichols, 2013). The media has created a fantasy power about the NRA that ends up creating more real power for the latter. According to Nichols (2013), after the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, the coverage that media gave to the NRA was deferential. The media scheduled programs around the different demands made by the NRA and accepted frequent “no question” interviews. Nichols (2013) noted that this made the NRA look like the victim because of the constant coverage.
The NRA has the tendency of provoking emotions within the media, which ends up benefiting the former. The spokeswoman of NRA has been in the major outlets because of a statement she made noting that “the legacy media enjoys mass shootings” (Charles " West, 2018). The statement may seem biased against the media, but it holds some truth. Reporting of mass shootings will always increase the media coverage and rating for different legacy media (Charles " West, 2018). Further, the attention of the media will shift to demonizing NRA and its support for guns. The negative press that NRA receives from the legacy media has helped shape its agenda and turn into a powerful gun lobby group as it is known today.
The first years of NRA existence were not as intense as it is today. The media has played a significant role in propelling the company to the heights it enjoys today. According to Charles and West (2018), in the early days, if the media reported anything positive about the guns, the NRA would not interfere. However, any negative coverage gun control and any approval of legislation of arms restriction, the NRA would send its members into action. The increase in negative media coverage about the NRA is an indication of the negative relationship that exists between the NRA and the legacy media. The negative coverage by the media led individuals to think that the legacy media were a part of an anti-gun conspiracy (Charles " West, 2018). Many citizens and especially those of a political class joined the NRA because they thought that they would lose their right to the second amendment and the constitution at large. Many powerful politicians and agencies joined the NRA making it very powerful. The NRA has the legacy media to thank for the turn in its fortunes. Charles and West (2018) conclude that every time the NRA attacks the press, it is not just for the masses but to push their agenda of turning the press into an enemy to escalate the anger in their supporters and gain support from the political elite.
Conclusion
The second amendment is an important part of the American constitution. However, the amendment is prone to different interpretations from different individuals. The NRA, for example, has used the bill to advocate for individual gun rights. The NRA has the belief that the second amendment gives individuals a right to have firearms. Despite the multiple shootings the NRA remains adamant about gun laws and uses the legacy media to push for its agenda. The different interpretations are partly because of the wording and framers. The adoption of the bill happened many years where the social dynamics were different. Individuals in modern America have access to guns and, unlike when the second amendment was adopted, people’s intention cannot be fully established.
Mental health is a modern issue that has to be considered in the gun control debate. Mental health illness and background checks are important aspects that can be utilized by authorities as means of gun control. Scrapping off the second amendment does not guarantee that mass shootings and murder will end especially without proper legislation in place. However, a proper bill to the law and coming up with proper regulations that will make it harder for individuals have access to guns will be a big step towards gun control. Scrapping off the second amendment shall not solve the issue if there will be restrictions on the government for gun control. The gun control problem is not a constitutional one, but rather a political one.
References
BBC. (2018). Why is US gun lobby NRA so controversial? BBC News. Retrieved 6 March 2018, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35261394
Burkett, M. (2008). Much Ado About...Something Else: D.C. v. Heller, the Racialized Mythology of the Second Amendment, and Gun Policy Reform. The Journal of Gender, Race " Justice, 57, 57-105.
Charles, P., " West, S. (2018). How the NRA Pioneered the Right-Wing Art of Demonizing the Media. Slate Magazine. Retrieved 6 March 2018, from https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/how-the-nra-pioneered-the-right-wing-art-of-demonizing-the-media.html
Chemerinsky, E. (2004). Putting the Gun Control Debate in Social Perspective. Fordham Law Review, 73(2), 477-485.
Chemerinsky, E. (2013). The Second Amendment and Gun Control. Touro Law Review, 25(2), 698-702.
Hand, C. (2016). Gun Control and the Second Amendment. New York: ABDO Digital.
Ludwig, J. (2017). Reducing gun violence in America. Proceedings of The National Academy Of Sciences, 114(46), 12097-12099.
Nichols, J. (2013). How Obsequious Media Coverage Perpetuates NRA Mythology. The Nation. Retrieved 6 March 2018, from https://www.thenation.com/article/how-obsequious-media-coverage-perpetuates-nra-mythology
Vandercoy, D. (1994). The History of the Second Amendment. Valparaiso University Law Review, 28(3), 1007-1039.
Waldman, M. (2014). The second amendment. New York: Simon " Schuster.
