FEATURES
Background
By Allison Ying and Emilie Smithh
The who, what, where and when of the history of gun control
In the early history of the United States, Second Amendment conflicts were rare because the legislation dealt with militiamen instead of the average citizen.
According to Ted Dickson (former Co-Chair of the AP U.S. History Curriculum Development and Assessment Committeeand Chair of the PDS Upper School History Department) the Second Amendment was placed in the Constitution as a way to protect citizens against attacks from Native Americans and other violent threats, not for protecting citizens from each other. The reason for the Second Amendment in the Constitution played a huge role in how the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment and many outcomes of cases until the late 1900s.
An example of this influence is found in the 1939 Supreme Court case the US vs Miller. The main arguments of the case pertain to which types of weapons can be owned by the average citizen and how the Federal Government can regulate gun movements between states using the National Firearm Act (NFA). The court decided that the NFA does not inhibit the 2nd Amendment to citizens because the weapon implied in the case, sawed-off double barrelled shotguns, was not a specific weapon being used by local militias, so it was deemed illegal carry across state lines. The Supreme Court's decision was influenced by the older interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Due to an increase in violence over the past century, the people have changed their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately, with an evolving national identity and a dramatically larger population, the current members of Congress struggle to satisfy the demands of the citizens. While some Americans are comforted by the protection and safety offered to them by guns, others feel threatened by the role firearms play in intensifying modern violence. These two polar ideologies have limited Congress’s options in addressing gun control. With no clear majority and neither sides willing to compromise, the debate for gun control remains a stalemate.
With little federal action, some state governments are confronting their citizens’ safety concerns themselves. In response to the rising mass shooting rates, New York has restricted non-regional residents from bringing guns into the state. New York hopes that the new policy will narrow interregional gun interactions and minimize gun violence.
Rather than directly challenging the Second Amendment, New York’s state government looked for loopholes to maneuver around it. Other regional governments have struggled with creating gun policies that will not violate their citizens’ constitutional rights.
Leading the Anti-gun movement was Chicago, but after thirty years of a city-wide ban on gun sales, its policy was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The case concluded that outlawing gun trade was a direct violation of its citizen’s constitutional liberties.
The federal government has always ranked individual rights as its top priority. The concern for local governments overreaching their boundaries is a recurring theme in past Supreme Court rulings. More recently, the District of Columbia vs Heller case re-established the importance for preserving constitutional rights and restored access to handguns for Washington D.C. residents. The case was significant in proving to the American citizens that the national government respects their individual freedoms.
"While some Americans are comforted by the protection and safety offered to them by guns, others feel threatened by the role firearms play in intensifying modern violence. "