Gun Control and the Second Amendment: What the Bill of Rights Actually Says

Introduction: The Second Amendment and Gun Control Debate

One of the most frequently cited arguments against restrictions on firearms is the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, in recent years even largely conservative Supreme Courts have been reluctant to interpret the Second Amendment as a firearm free-for-all. The Court has routinely declined to hear nearly all Second Amendment cases that argue citizens have an unlimited right to bear arms. In 1983, for example, the Court let stand a Seventh Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders ("Gun Control," ACLU, 2002).

Supreme Court Reluctance to Expand Gun Rights

The reason for this judicial reluctance may be that unless the Constitution is interpreted to protect an individual's right to own every kind of arm available, there is no legally valid way to oppose even the most reasonable restrictions on handguns — such as a waiting period. Theoretically, the term arms is not limited to guns but could include "Uzis or semi-automatic rifles — even nuclear warheads" and weapons of mass destruction that the musket-carrying militiamen of the Founders' era could never have imagined ("Gun Control," ACLU, 2002). As soon as reasonable governmental regulation of weapons to protect public safety is accepted, "we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction" ("Gun Control," ACLU, 2002).

United States v. Miller and the Militia Clause

The last U.S. Supreme Court case to directly address firearms restrictions before the modern era was the 1939 case United States v. Miller, in which the Court unanimously ruled "that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the state's right to maintain and train a militia," not to grant citizens an individual right to bear every kind of arm ("Gun Control," ACLU, 2002). As the Court held: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument" ("Gun Control," ACLU, 2002).

A close examination of the wording of the Second Amendment itself is instructive. It 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 Second Amendment," Brady Campaign, 2006). Note how pro-gun activists conveniently omit the words referring to a well-regulated militia in their defense of unrestricted access to firearms.

Conclusion: Gun Control as Strict Constructionism

To arm and train the military was the true intent of the Second Amendment — not to guarantee that every person, regardless of military training, should be able to possess a gun. Thus, it is gun control advocates who are the true strict constructionalists when they argue that law, order, and access to guns should be left largely in the hands of the police and military. Even where guns are available for controlled recreational purposes — such as hunting and limited self-defense — these firearms should remain subject to meaningful regulation.