|
Abstract
|
An organized campaign by groups such as the National Rifle Association has sought to convince policymakers and others that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution grants an unfettered right to individuals to possess any firearm, free from federal or state regulation. Although advocates may debate the meaning that should be given to the Second Amendment, under the American legal system the meaning of any particular constitutional provision is determined by the controlling precedent of Supreme Court cases. Two cases, Presser v Illinois and United States v Miller, remain the Supreme Court's latest word on the meaning of the Second Amendment. In Presser, the Court held that the Second Amendment is applicable only to federal, not state, laws. In Miller and subsequent federal cases, any Second Amendment "right" to bear arms is closely linked to the preservation of state militias, upholding a variety of federal gun legislation. Unless the Supreme Court modifies or reverses its Presser and Miller decisions, health advocates should understand that the Second Amendment poses no obstacle to even broad gun control legislation.
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The goal of this article by Vernick and Teret was to examine the legal meaning of the Second Amendment and to address the implications of this definition for gun control legislation.
METHODOLOGY:
A non-experimental design was employed for this study. The research analyzed past court cases regarding the Second Amendment.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The research analyzed the meaning of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment. The authors stated that the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun groups argue that the Second Amendment guarantees every individual an unfettered right to bear arms. The researchers maintained that this is an inaccurate interpretation. The data showed that, because of the "rule of adherence to precedent" in the U.S., a constitutional provision's meaning is established by the precedent of the body of case law, especially the Supreme Court opinions. The authors stated that the courts have looked at two issues of the Amendment: whether it pertains to a federal, state, and/or local level and whether the right to bear arms is a collective or individual right. It was shown that two court cases, Presser v. Illinois and United States v. Miller, illustrate how the Supreme Court has defined the Second Amendment. In the Presser case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Amendment applied to federal but not state laws. Therefore, it was shown that the Presser case determined that state governments may enact gun control laws, without violating the Second Amendment. The data found that the Presser case is the latest word in the federal vs. state debate of the Amendment. In the Miller case, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to bear arms must be linked to preservation of state militia. Thus, it was stated that the Miller case showed that the Supreme Court held that it was a collective right, not an individual one, to keep and bear arms. Again, it was shown that this case upholds federal gun legislation.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
The authors recommended that public health advocates understand the meaning of the Second Amendment. They stated that the advocates should know that broad gun control legislation cannot be stopped by the Second Amendment. However, they stated that advocates need to aware that any state law must also stand up to each state's constitution. It was shown that state constitutions containing provisions to guarantee the right to bear arms are not necessarily impervious to gun regulation. Finally, the authors addressed the specific gun control legislation which is possible under the Second Amendment. They emphasized that almost any type of gun law would be permissible at the state level. For example, it was shown that this would include the one-gun-per-month purchase restriction in Virginia, a complete ban on the ownership of handguns, as in the town of Morton Grove, Illinois, and restrictions on the design and manufacture of guns, such as the anti-saturday-night-specials measures in Maryland and South Carolina. At the federal level, the authors advised that the Second Amendment would overrule laws which interfere with the efficiency of preservation of state militias. The research posited that gun purchase waiting periods, prohibitions on convicted felons' firearms ownership, and laws requiring engineering modifications on guns to make them safer would all be considered valid under the Second Amendment.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
Firearms Ownership
Firearms Control
Firearms Legislation
Firearms Policy
Criminal Justice System
Federal Government
State Government
Local Government
Firearms Violence
Violence Prevention
Adult Firearms Use
Adult Violence
Constitutional Rights and Liberties
Language: en |