Second Amendment interpretation and the gun control debate

Gun ownership is constitutionally protected in the United States, embedded in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which 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," (Bill of Rights, 1789). The interpretation of this constitutional right has become the topic of heated debate in the United States. As the Library of Congress points out, the meaning of the Second Amendment is "not self-evident," as are many items in the Constitution that were written, deliberately or not, in a vague manner that left matters up to future interpretations of the law by the judiciary. While other countries in the world find the American gun control issue perplexing, Americans continue to grapple with how to form and defend their own personal militias.

The Supreme Court has ruled on several Second Amendment cases, always upholding the validity of the Second Amendment and never questioning its efficacy as part of the Constitution. After all, the United States was founded on the principles of freedom and liberty and that does mean that individuals do have the right to take up arms against their government or against anyone else they perceive to be a threat. Americans also have the right to commit suicide, which accounts for sixty percent of all gun-related deaths (Masters, 2016). One of the most recent Supreme Court rulings related to the Second Amendment was in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court struck down a local Washington, D.C. handgun restriction law. Thus, while states and municipalities can pass laws that restrict, regulate, or control gun sales or possession, they cannot pass laws that completely and outright ban the sale or possession of firearms.

For radical groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA), gun ownership and sales has become much more than about protecting the Second Amendment from being infringed upon. The Second Amendment is safe. Liberals who advocate for gun control rarely, if ever, request that the Second Amendment be revoked or even amended, only that it be interpreted differently and in accordance with evidence, facts, science, and reason.

The NRA and Rabid Unreasonableness

The NRA (2016) has become an organization that reflexively opposes any type of gun control or gun regulation. Commentators like Davidson (2015) use logical fallacies to support the position of the NRA, noting for example, that the NRA opposes background checks for gun ownership because doing so would be too difficult. Being too difficult is not a reason for not mandating background checks. Davidson (2015) also claims that assault weapons are "not more powerful" than other guns, without explaining exactly why (p. 1). Generally, the position of hard-lined gun advocates is less about logic, reason, and constitutionality as it is about anger, emotional responses, and contrarian liberal bashing. As Melzer (2015) puts it, gun rights organizations like the NRA and their "deeply committed supporters also purchase firearms for a more symbolic reason: to send a warming to the federal government that individuals have the rights and are willing to fight," (p. 793). People with guns can intimidate both people without guns and other people with guns, making gun ownership integral to a culture of fear and violence. As Lott (2010) also points out, many people who own guns claim that they have scared off intruders simply by brandishing the weapon, indicating a relatively high prevalence of nonviolent the use of guns in self-defense scenarios. Self-defense is indeed on the of the most common arguments in favor of relaxed or non-existent gun regulations. The argument is that people need guns to defend themselves from other people who have guns, which leads to another argument: which is that there are too many guns already on the market for gun control to be of any use. "Too many Americans already own weapons," (Spitzer, 2015, p. 7). Yet just like the fallacies inherent in the argument that background checks would be too difficult to implement, there is also a fallacy in claiming that it would be too difficult to control guns because too many guns exist. There are workable options for both cases; it was difficult to build the Erie Canal and the Brooklyn Bridge, but those were completed. As Masters (2016) also points out, countries that used to have high rates of gun ownership but who decided to place tighter controls on guns have successfully implemented government buy-back programs. Davidson (2015) claims those programs do not work, but evidently they do, because the rates of gun violence in other wealthy, industrialized countries does not come close to the rates of gun violence in the United States. In fact, the rates of gun violence in the United States ranks near the top.

Suggestions for Policy

One approach would be to review the landmark 19th century Supreme Court case United States v. Cruikshank, in which the Court ruled that the Second Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government," (United States v. Cruikshank). Another approach would be to continue allowing states to individually decide and determine their own gun laws, as is the case now. The problem with this approach is that it may be making the problem worse. As Knight (2013) found in extensive research tracing the gun regulations in multiple states that states with weak gun laws tend to become trafficking points for states with tight gun control laws. This creates almost a black or grey market effect. In fact, "criminal possession of guns is higher in states exposed to weak laws in nearby states," (Knight, 2013). Another problem with a lack of federal legislation is that it leads to unclear laws, and Americans are already stupid enough -- they need to think in absolute terms. "The attention to detail in gun regulation is both incredibly specific while at the same time creating regulation that isn't fully comprehensive," (Cage, 2013, p. 1).

Only about one quarter of all Americans support an outright ban on handguns (Goldberg, 2012). That number is actually quite high considering the rabid rhetoric on the other side of the spectrum. Just shy of half of all Americans admit to owning a gun (Goldberg, 2012). Certainly, there can be enough public support for a more sensible gun policy that does not involve revoking Constitutional rights but which does frame the issue as a matter of the right to live. When two rights conflict, usually the one that is more pressing tends to outweigh the need that is less pressing. Americans can be encouraged to support gun regulations at the federal level if they can also be convinced that guns are actually infringing on their own rights, or some other right listed in the Bill of Rights. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (2016) offers a full range of legal counseling and options for repackaging the gun regulations issue with the hopes of helping the Supreme Court offer a more modernized interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Unfortunately, it takes mass shootings and tragic deaths for many Americans to react at all to the issue of gun regulations. Barry, Mcginty, Vernick & Webster (2015) performed an empirical study and found that in the aftermath of tragic mass shootings, support for gun regulations shoots up to the point where "large majorities of Americans -- both gun owners and non-owners" will support a range of policies, including "policies to enhance the background check system for gun sales, prohibit certain dangerous persons from having guns, improve oversight of gun dealers, and prevent people with mental illnesses from having guns," (p. 55). The results of this research only proved true after a violent incident. It might be up to public health administrators to offers cogent solutions to the gun problem. With a public health policy focus, the gun regulations issue can be reframed and taken out of the hands of the NRA (Kuehn, 2013). The United States needs a national police of gun regulation based on the rights of individuals to be free from violence.