Can Lawmakers Limit The Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. The Amendment's phrase the right of the people to keep and bear Arms has been interpreted as creating an individual constitutional right to possess firearms. However, some scholars argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. The Fourteenth Amendment also addressed the issue of disarming former slaves, recognising that states may do as they please as long as they do not interfere with the Constitution and laws of the United States or the civil or natural rights of the people. The U.S. Supreme Court has also weighed in on the issue, adopting a collective rights approach and determining that Congress can regulate certain firearms under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to maintain a well-regulated militia

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. This was in response to concerns that Congress could disarm the state militias and create a national standing army, threatening the sovereignty of the States. The Amendment states that:

> 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 Amendment has been interpreted in different ways. Some believe that the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right to possess firearms, meaning that legislative bodies are restricted from prohibiting firearm possession. Others argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defence, and that the Amendment does not limit any legislature's authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms.

The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1867, also addressed the issue of disarming the newly freed slaves in the Southern States. Judge Timothy Farrar wrote that the States may do as they please, provided they do not interfere with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or with the civil or natural rights of the people.

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, where the plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of a Washington D.C. law prohibiting the possession of handguns.

The Amendment does not limit the authority of any legislature to regulate private civilian use of firearms

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed a threat to the sovereignty of the several States.

The text of the Amendment does not limit the authority of any legislature to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. There is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defence in the Constitution. The Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" has been interpreted as creating an individual constitutional right to possess firearms. However, some scholars argue that the prefatory language "a well-regulated Militia" suggests that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defence.

The Fourteenth Amendment, which was in the process of adoption by the State legislatures in 1867, recognised the States as governments and allowed them to do as they pleased within the limits of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and without interfering with the civil or natural rights of the people.

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue of the Second Amendment in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of a Washington D.C. law that prohibited the possession of handguns.

The 'individual right theory' suggests the Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession

The individual right theory suggests that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession. This theory is based on the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", which some interpret as creating an individual constitutional right to possess firearms.

However, the Amendment's prefatory language, "a well-regulated Militia", has also been interpreted as indicating that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defence. This interpretation suggests that the Second Amendment does not create an individual right to possess firearms, but rather ensures the effectiveness of the military.

The debate over the intended scope of the Second Amendment has been ongoing, with some arguing that the Amendment does not restrict legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, while others maintain that it does. The U.S. Supreme Court has also weighed in on the issue, most notably in the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court revisited a 1934 precedent and determined that Congress could regulate certain types of firearms under the National Firearms Act.

The 'collective rights approach' allows Congress to regulate firearms under the National Firearms Act of 1934

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. The text of the Amendment does not show any interest in limiting any legislature's authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. However, the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" has been interpreted as creating an individual constitutional right to possess firearms. Under this "individual right theory", the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession.

On the other hand, some scholars argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defence. In 1867, Judge Timothy Farrar published his Manual of the Constitution of the United States of America, which stated that the States are recognised as governments and may do as they please as long as they do not interfere with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or with the civil or natural rights of the people.

In 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934. This was because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia". The Court explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 was an important piece of legislation in firearm regulation. It made ownership of silencers, short-barrelled rifles, and short-barrelled shotguns (and much more) far more complicated. The NRA supported the Act, which helped ensure its passage. The NRA assumed that licensure and tighter control on buyers and sellers would cut down on gun crime.

The Fourteenth Amendment concentrated on the Southern States' disarming of newly freed slaves

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. The Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right to possess firearms. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional.

The congressional debate on the proposed Fourteenth Amendment concentrated on what the Southern States were doing to harm the newly freed slaves, including disarming the former slaves. The Southern States passed Black Codes in 1865 and 1866 that limited the freedoms of newly freed African-Americans. The Radical Republicans who advanced the Thirteenth Amendment hoped to ensure broad civil and human rights for the newly freed people. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted these principles enshrined in the Constitution to protect the new Civil Rights Act from being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and also to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote. For freed slaves, the 14th Amendment affirmed their citizenship and granted them legal protection from violations to their rights as citizens.

Frequently asked questions