The complex issue of gun control has always been a controversial topic in the nation, subjecting many legal officials and Americans to heated debates over whether the second amendment should be enforced concerning whether freedom or safety should be prioritized.

With the rising amount of gun-related incidents taking place across the country, citizens alike are forced to acknowledge the topic of stricter gun control. However, this concept goes beyond just preventing the next tragedy from occurring but reevaluating how Americans utilize their different interpretations of the second amendment to justify their motivations for allowing unrestricted gun usage.

Despite the many social injustices and challenges occurring in this country currently, the issue of gun control should not be neglected, and citizens in a free democratic society should support gun regulation.

‍

Gun control has consistently been a partisan topic that has sparked discussion amongst those on the political spectrum. Despite many Gun laws being introduced in Congress, only a few bills have received legislative action.¹ On June 26, 2008, the case District of Columbia v. Heller was presented to the Supreme Court after a dispute occurred regarding the provisions of the District of Columbia Code involving gun regulation and what was believed to be a violation of the second amendment.²‍

However, the court stated that

“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course, the right was not unlimited… Thus we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”³

Despite individuals having the constitutional right to exercise their freedom to bear arms, this right could also be limited. The ruling of this case (5-4) altered how the Supreme Court initially interpreted the second amendment as a collective right, shifting to an individual rights interpretation. This allowed the push for individuals to interpret that they have a constitutional right to possess a gun despite militia service.⁴

The same year, another major case arose involving Otis McDonald, a retired custodian, and many other individuals affiliated with the N.R.A. lawsuit. They challenged a former 1982 Chicago handgun law that banned the new registration of handguns and made registration a prerequisite to owning a firearm.⁵

On June 28, 2010, the case McDonald v. The City of Chicago went to the Supreme Court and determined that referring back to the due clause in the 14th amendment should include the second amendment, which allowed said amendment to apply to the state and federal government. As a result, the interpretation of the 2nd amendment regarding individual rights was extended.

‍

In 2016, Congress extended the prohibition of the possession of a firearm to individuals convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” in 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(9).⁶ Stephen Voisine violated §207 of the Maine Criminal Code by pleading guilty to assaulting his girlfriend.

It was classified as a misdemeanor by “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly cause[ ] bodily injury” to another individual. After Voisine was investigated for killing a bald eagle, law enforcement officials discovered that he owned a rifle which resulted in the government charging him for violating §922(g)(9).⁷

William Armstrong also pleaded guilty to assaulting his wife, violating a Maine domestic violence law prohibiting him from committing assault against a family or household member. It was later discovered that Armstrong was storing six guns and a large quantity of ammunition, charging him under §922(g)(9).

Both argued that they should not be subjected to §922(g)(9)’s prohibition because they believe that their prior convictions fall under reckless conduct instead of intentional or knowing. On June 27, 2016, it was eventually ruled (6-2) that any individual convicted of “recklessly” committing violent domestic assault should be prohibited from possessing a gun under the Gun Control Act of 1968.

This ruling was explicitly determined by the Lautenberg Amendment, with Associate Justice Elena Karen stating, “Congress enacted §922(g)(9) [the Lautenberg Amendment] in 1996 to bar those domestic abusers convicted of garden-variety assault or battery misdemeanors–just like those convicted of felonies–from owning guns.”⁸

‍

In 1975, California enacted a ten-day waiting period that would force an individual to wait ten days until a firearm could be released to a purchaser. Almost 50 years later, this act was challenged under the guise that this rule was violating the 2nd amendment by not allowing one to exercise their right “to keep and bear arms.”

On February 20, 2018, the Supreme Court justices exercised their ability to restrict such powers by dismissing an appeal to California’s 10-day waiting period, allowing the rule to stay in place.⁹

However, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has stated that “the 2nd Amendment is a disfavored right in this court” and “The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court’s constitutional orphan,” referring back to the court not conducting a hearing for a second amendment case since 2010.¹⁰

Back in 2010 and 2008, the Supreme Court had previously shut down laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C. banning private possessions of handguns believing it was a violation of the 2nd amendment. However, following these cases, justices have turned away gun advocates looking to challenge restrictions based on the 2nd amendment.

‍

In June 2020, the Supreme Court refused to schedule any hearings regarding various challenges against state gun law restrictions. As a result of the many refusals on the supreme court’s part to take any new cases, many states left gun control laws that gun advocates believed violated their right to the second amendment.

At least four states, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Illinois, and Maryland, had some requirements to get a license to carry a firearm outside the home. Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas joined together.

They expressed their disapproval of the court’s refusal of certiorari by stating that it was time for the Supreme Court not to stall its “decade-long failure to protect the second amendment.”¹¹ These cases allowed the Supreme Court to gain an opportunity to expand the scope of the second amendment, with the last significant ruling regarding gun rights taking place in 2010.

‍

In the state of New York, it is a crime to have possession of a firearm without obtaining a license, whether it may be used in public or at home. In order to be allowed to carry a firearm outside of the home, an individual must obtain a license to carry a pistol or revolver if it is proven that “proper cause exists” for doing so.¹²

In 2021, Brandon Koch and Robert Nash applied for unrestricted licenses to carry a handgun based on their interest in self-defense. New York State denied their applications because they failed to satisfy the “proper clause” requirement needed to obtain a license. This resulted in Koch and Nash suing state officials for violating the 2nd and 14th amendment rights by denying their application.

Despite previously agreeing not to rule on the case in 2020, N.Y. officials decided to repeal the regulation after the Supreme Court decided to hear the case.¹³ In a ruling of 6-3, the Supreme Court decided to take down New York State regulation, under the basis of the law violating the 2nd amendment. This ruling demonstrates an enormous expansion of gun rights and marks the first hearing relating to the second amendment in more than a decade.¹⁴‍

The gun control debate continues to plague American society as many mass shootings occur. 39,707 deaths from firearms took place in the U.S. in 2019, with 60% of deaths from firearms consisting of suicides.¹⁵ Supporters of Gun Control demand more laws to prevent gun injuries and mass shootings and push for background checks, improved gun laws, and better regulations against mentally ill individuals buying guns.

However, gun advocates have accused the opposite side of using tragic events to further their pro-gun control agenda, stating that more laws would not have prevented any incidents.

A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center states that about 49% of adults state that there would be fewer mass shootings if the restrictions on obtaining guns were stricter, while 42% state that stricter gun control would make no difference in the number of shootings taking place and 9% stated that mass shootings would increase.

Another poll states that 34% of individuals believe that if more people owned guns, there would be an increase in crime, while another 34% state that there would be little change in the status of crime rates occurring, and 31% of individuals state there would be less crime.¹⁶‍

‍

The discussion of gun control is a multifaceted, broad, intricate issue with many opinions on what is right and wrong. By allowing judicial officials to continue using their interpretation of the 2nd amendment in order to allow looser gun restrictions instead of working to formulate proper laws in place in order to prevent such incidents, American citizens are suffering from the consequences of such actions.

In the wake of many deaths, society must try to come to a bipartisan agreement to stop needless violence from taking place.

Acknowledgement

The Institute for Youth in Policy wishes to acknowledge Marielle DeVos, Paul Kramer, Sydni Faragalli, Carlos Bindert, and other contributors for developing and maintaining the 2022 Summer Fellowship program within the Institute.

Citation

APA: Serve, W. (2022, September 14). America's Ongoing Battle: Gun Rights vs. Gun Control. The Institute For Youth in Policy. Retrieved from https://cite.yipinstitute.org/sjAYsWA

MLA: Serve, Williana. “America's Ongoing Battle: Gun Rights vs. Gun Control.” The Institute For Youth in Policy, 14 Sept. 2022, cite.yipinstitute.org/sjAYsWA.

Works Cited

[1] Krouse, W. J. (n.d.). Gun control legislation - federation of American scientists. Retrieved July 27, 2022, from https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf

[2] US Supreme Court, District of Columbia, et al. v. Heller, supremecourt.gov, October 2007

[3] Saul Cornell and Nathan DeDino, “A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control,” ir.lawnet.fordham.edu, 2004

[4] History of gun control - procon.org. Gun Control. (2022, June 27). Retrieved July 26, 2022, from https://gun-control.procon.org/history-of-gun-control/

[5] Encyclopedia Britannica, inc. (n.d.). McDonald v. City of Chicago. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved July 26, 2022, from https://www.britannica.com/event/McDonald-v-City-of-Chicago

[6] Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Identify Prohibited Persons | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. (n.d.). Retrieved July 26, 2022, from https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons‍

[7] Supreme Court of the United States. (n.d.). Retrieved July 27, 2022, from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10154_19m1.pdf‍

[8] Melissa Jeltsen, "Supreme Court Affirms That Even 'Reckless' Domestic Abusers Should Lose Gun Rights," huffingtonpost.com, June 27, 2016

[9] Pete Williams, "Supreme Court Won't Hear Challenge to California Gun Waiting Period," nbcnews.com, February 20, 2018

[10] Los Angeles Times. (2018, February 20). Supreme Court leaves in place California's 10-day wait for gun buyers, rejects 2nd amendment challenge. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved July 26, 2022, from https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-guns-20180220-story.html

[11] Quinn, M. (2020, June 15). Supreme Court declines to hear host of gun rights cases. CBS News. Retrieved July 26, 2022,    from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-rights-cases-massachusetts-california/

[12] Supreme Court of the United States. (n.d.). Retrieved July 27, 2022, from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

[13] Adam Liptak, "Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to New York City Gun Ordinance," nytimes.com, April 27, 2020

[14] _DanMangan. (2022, June 23). Supreme Court strikes down New York gun law restricting concealed carry in major Second Amendment case. CNBC. Retrieved July 26, 2022, from https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/23/supreme-court-strikes-down-new-york-gun-law-restricting-concealed-carry.html

[15] Facts and figures. (n.d.). Retrieved July 26, 2022, from https://health.ucdavis.edu/what-you-can-do/facts.html

[16] Schaeffer, K. (2021, September 13). Key facts about Americans and guns. Pew Research Center. Retrieved July 26, 2022,    from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/

‍

Cover Photo by Colin Lloyd on Unsplash