Understanding the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution

The language of the 2^nd Amendment to the Constitution and the rights it defines has recently come under scrutiny with regards to events such as the shootings in Arizona. When events such as this occur, government starts to question the need for gun control to deter or minimize the occurrence of such events. The rights as defined in the 2^nd Amendment to the Constitution were ratified on 12/15/1791. The specific language of the amendment is identified below:

“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 access to firearms for individuals with mental conditions or those who would be a threat to our security should be closely examined after events such as the one in Arizona. Gun control is a controversial issue which has been made into a political one. Events involving shootings and the individuals who have been involved need to be addressed when it is determined their access should never have been given.

While we may not know specifically the reasons the 2^nd amendment was created, we can look at the times involved. Our country was in a different situation with regards to being young at the time this amendment was generated and the situation we are in today should not impact the rights as defined in the Constitution.

The rights of individuals to own firearms should not be questioned, but the access of them by individuals who are unstable or a threat to our national security should. In the early years of our nation, it was determined from the environment in existence at the time that individuals had the right and need to own firearms. There were three reasons: for the protection of their family, to provide food, and the third was the need of the country at the time to have the availability of individuals with firearms to fight for our nation (remember that our country had just experienced a British invasion).

The shootings in Arizona and others in the past have brought the issue of gun control and the rights of individuals as defined under the 2^nd amendment to own firearms to the top of many discussions. Some of the discussions may be justified with respect to the availability of guns for individuals with mental conditions or who are considered a threat to the security of our country. That being said the actions of a few individuals, though they may be horrendous, should not put the rights of other individuals in jeopardy with respect to the content of the 2^nd Amendment or any other law currently on the books.

Granted there are instances where the availability to purchase firearms through gun shows raises questions about the ability to check the background of individuals wanting to make a purchase. Links need to be provided to individuals selling firearms at such places as gun shows or flea markets so those who should not own firearms do not get access.

Congress has a distinct responsibility to provide guidance in the situations identified above and where guidance has been given, it needs to be revisited to address the issues discussed above. Guidance is the key word in these situations, except where the authority to issue specific legislation regarding responsibilities for which the federal government has jurisdiction. The issue of gun control is just one example where our rights as individuals as defined in the Constitution are being examined through legislation. Congress does have the responsibility to make appropriate laws to ensure our safety and security, but they should consider a balance between our rights and the security of our country. One example of a compromise, though it is controversial, is the Patriot Act.

Several pieces of legislation are being proposed in the Senate and House of Representatives regarding gun control issues. One example is Senate bill S.436. The basic purpose for this legislation is to establish a system to list all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm in the national instant criminal background check system. This would require a background check for every firearm sale. Another Senate bill is Gun Control Background Check of 2011 (S.35). In the House of Representatives there are also two pieces of legislation being proposed. The first is H.R.591 which is titled Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2011. Another is H.R.227 titled Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2011.

Legislation associated with making changes in the access to guns are not limited by the ones identified in the preceding paragraph. It is clear that there needs to be some action taken by Congress to address the access to guns by those who should not have them. Each year there are hundreds, if not thousands, of pieces of legislation initiated. When a topic becomes a hot one, there seems to be more emphasis to make changes. The issue of the right to own guns as defined in the 2^nd amendment cannot be changed without violating the Constitution. What needs to happen is not changing the right to own guns through legislation but restricting access to those who should not have them. One point to make clear is that law abiding citizens and their right to own guns is not the problem. Regardless of whether laws are on the books, criminals will have guns. Individuals need to have the capability of protecting themselves and their families and there should be no legislation that restricts that right if they are law abiding citizens.