It has been written by Prerit Upadhaya, a law student of Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies (VIPS-TC)

Introduction:

Amendment Two to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791. It protects the right of Americans to possess weapons for the protection of themselves, their rights, and their property. The original text is written as such:

“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.”[1] After the Second Amendment was ratified, all parties agreed that the common person would always have the natural right to own and bear arms, even if the federal government had military power over them. This amendment has been a topic of debate and controversy for decades, with proponents arguing that it guarantees an individual's right to own and carry firearms, while opponents claim it only applies to collective militia service.

History and context:

The American Revolution, in which citizen militias were instrumental in overpowering the British Army, gave rise to the Second Amendment. A well-armed populace, according to the Founding Fathers, is necessary to uphold liberty and fend off despotism. The amendment was influenced by the English Bill of Rights, which stated that "the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence." However, it has been a subject of debate in recent times.

The debates:

The Second Amendment has been the subject of a contentious argument between two primary factions: those who contend that it only relates to collective militia service and others who maintain that it ensures an individual's freedom to keep and carry firearms.

Pro-second amendments are as follows:

Proponents of the Second Amendment argue that it:

· Allows citizens to defend themselves and their families

· Serves as a deterrent to tyranny and government overreach

· Enables recreational activities like hunting and sport shooting

· Is essential for a free and independent society

However, they have been faced with stiff competition from those who are against it. The people who are against the second amendments have put forward the following points:

· Contributes to gun violence and mass shootings

· Is outdated and no longer relevant in modern society

· Should be subject to stricter regulations and controls

· Was only intended for collective militia service, not individual ownership

There have been landmark judgments by the US Supreme Court on the Second Amendment, namely the cases of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). The above-mentioned cases have been explained below:

1) District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)[2]: It is a landmark ruling by the US Supreme Court. It concluded that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that legally owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms for customarily lawful purposes like self-defense within the home. This was the first Supreme Court case that addressed whether state militias were the exclusive recipients of the Second Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

2) McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)[3]: It is also a landmark judgment of the US Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment's guarantee of an individual's right to "keep and bear arms" is incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment and is therefore enforceable against the states. The ruling resolved any doubts regarding the extent of state-specific gun rights that were raised by District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). The Court extended the Heller ruling to state and local governments, ensuring that the Second Amendment applies nationwide.

Modern implications:

The American political landscape and society are still shaped by the Second Amendment. The argument has resurfaced considering recent mass shootings, with some arguing for more gun ownership and others calling for tougher gun control legislation.

Impact of gun control:

To lower gun violence and increase public safety, gun control legislation has been passed at the federal, state, and local levels. There have been laws passed and these include:

· Background checks for firearm purchases

· Waiting periods and age restrictions

· Bans on certain types of firearms and accessories

· Registration and licensing requirements

To tackle such gun violence, the NRA (National Rifle Association) has come forward. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has been a prominent voice in the Second Amendment debate, advocating for gun rights and opposing stricter regulations. The NRA argues that gun control laws infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens and fail to address the root causes of gun violence. The organization's financial resources and capacity to organize its sizable membership allow it to influence lawmakers' voting habits. There main function is to promote public safety, law and order, and national defense, to train members of law enforcement agencies, the armed forces, the militia, and people of good repute in marksmanship and in the safe handling and efficient use of small arms[4].

What does future holds for gun control in the U.S?

For example- the recent association attempt on former US President Donald J. Trump speaks volumes about gun control in the US. It is critical to think about the Second Amendment's future as the discussion rages on. Will it be abolished or reinterpreted, or will it continue to be a pillar of American democracy? The American people, their elected officials, and the Supreme Court hold the power to determine the solution.

Conclusion:

The Second Amendment is a complex and multifaceted issue, with valid arguments on both sides. As the debate continues, it is essential to understand the history, context, and implications of this amendment. Ultimately, the right to bear arms is a fundamental aspect of American democracy, and its interpretation will continue to shape the country's future.

REFERENCES

[1]Congress.gov<https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/#:~:text=A%20well%20regulated%20Militia%2C%20being,Arms%2C%20shall%20not%20be%20infringed.> accessed on 4th of August,2024

[2] 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

[3] 561 U.S. 742 (2010)

[4]GuideStar<https://www.guidestar.org/profile/53-0116130#:~:text=To%20promote%20public%20safety%2C%20law,4.> accessed on 4th of August, 2024