The Job at Hand

POL 213: Our nation’s Supreme Court recently decided to hear a case to decide the decades-old question of whether or not the Second Amendment applies to individuals, or to the government as a collective whole. Their decision will affect states’ rights to impose gun controls or bans on their citizens. The amendment states: "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 current question lies in the meaning of the phrase “the right of the people.” It was decided by the District of Columbia’s Circuit Court of Appeals that the phrase meant the individual, and the ruling in D.C. vs. Heller was overturned to allow possession of handguns. It is this decision that is being appealed to the Supreme Court, and it is their responsibility to interpret carefully.

In the article, “Guns and the Constitution,” the author states that the ambiguity lies in the phrase, “A well-regulated militia.” The judge in this case argued with historical evidence that the Framers of the Constitution had able-bodied men in mind when they wrote this phrase, and not the National Guard of today. In fact, throughout the Bill of Rights, “the right of the people” was used to refer to individual rights and liberties. The First Amendment speaks of their right to assemble, the Fourth to their right to be secure in their possessions, the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth speak of protecting a defendant’s rights. In “Second Amendment Showdown,” Mike Cox writes of Madison’s intent: “Madison's draft borrowed liberally from the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and Virginia's Declaration of Rights. Both granted individual rights, not collective rights.” Madison meant to protect against infringement against the citizen by a large government. He sought to bridge the gap between the Federalists, who favored a central government, and the Anti-Federalists, who feared the corrupting influence of power.

The social culture at the time the Second Amendment was penned lent itself to an idea of the right of the individual as well. Homes were spread out across great expanses of unsettled land. There was no central army to call on in time of need. Instead, the young nation relied on volunteers and minutemen to come to its defense. This doesn’t speak of a centralized “militia,” or of a collective body, but again of an individual citizen.

There is no historical or written evidence to suggest that the Framers had any other idea in mind than to protect the individual liberties of America’s citizens. Because of this fact, I believe that the Supreme Court should uphold the Court of Appeals’ decision to overrule the District’s ban on handguns.

Cox, Mike. “Second Amendment Showdown.” Wall Street Journal Online. 23 November 2007. 25 November 2007 .

“Guns and the Constitution.” Wall Street Journal Online. 24 November 2007. 25 November 2007 .