With many recent incidents that involve guns between 2012 and 2013, gun control laws have become a hot topic in America. On one hand, after the horrific incident like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting at Newtown in 2012, most people wanting to limit guns from getting into the wrong by setting up a rigorous system that control who can and cannot obtain a gun. On the other hand, we have the people who believe that with such rigorous system in place is violated the individual rights that granted and protected by the United States Constitution. They believe that the rigorous system will prevent people from defending themselves and could be a violation of their privacy. Regardless of which side is right, if we want to understand more about our current conflict, we have to look back on how this hold debate started. The District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court case in 2008 that found the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 unconstitutional, which influence the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense by questioning the Second Amendment and laws that restrict a person from acquire guns.
The District of Columbia v. Heller plays an important role in shaping our right to keep and bear arms for self-defense by being the first court case that defines who can own guns for self-defend. The whole case is revolving around the Second Amendment and its meaning. Since the Second Amendment first enact into law in 1791, this prompts the court to look at it again. By understanding its original meaning, the court then can understand what intended to do and how it affects our current time. Before the Heller court case, States in America have its own laws on who can own and use guns. While some State is lax in their laws about guns, the District of Columbia was having very strict gun control laws. Since the Second Amendment was interpreted as somewhere along the line that only citizens with a military background can obtain and own guns for home defend (Carter 233).
Before the District of Columbia v. Heller, a citizen cannot own guns for self-defend without some form of military background. However, this all change when a special policeman in D.C who was denied permission to register a handgun that he wanted to keep at home. Heller was authorized to be able to carry his hand gun during his duty, but he cannot register for a license to keep a handgun at home. By being denied from owning a gun for self-defense, even with gun training like the military have, it encored him to take his case to the court and it soon ends up made it to the U.S. Supreme Court (Carter 234). While it sounds strange that an important issue that dealt with the Second Amendment has only come up recently since it first enact in 1791. However, prior to the Heller case the Supreme Court had only dealt with Second Amendment claims on only four times. These cases are old and they did not address the issue of the right to bear arms (233).
The main argument that help Heller win his case is the Second Amendment of the U.S Constitution. The Second Amendment of the U.S Constitution stated 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.” Since it was written in the 1791 the court finds the meaning behind is outdated. The Amendment could be focused on the protection for the role of the military to defend from oppression of the government. After carefully looking at the Second Amendment, the court comes to the decision that the Amendment extent to the people without military background. To come to this decision, the court is looking at the reference of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” instead of the original intent. To the court, the reference of “the right of the people” is implied to the individual rights. Also, by leaking with “keep and bear Arms” the interpretation of the Amendment is protecting individual rights to obtain and carry firearms without linking it to the military background (Carter 235). Then in June 26, 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court comes to the decision that the D.C restriction on who could obtain and carry handguns violated the Second Amendment of the U.S Constitution (Jackson and Johnson).
While the Heller case was a landmark case that redefined the right to bear arms for self-defense. The case did not affect the personal right to arms at States level. Since the Heller case was settled in a Federal District, individual State still has its own law and regulation of firearms. However, this would change two years after the Heller case. The question of whether or not States can restrict the constitutional right to bear arms was answered in the case of McDonald v. Chicago (Carter 238). It is another landmark case that dealt with this issue in 2010. Otis McDonald is a retired maintenance engineer living in a dangerous neighborhood in Chicago. Because of the condition in his neighborhood is getting worse, he wanted to get a handgun for self-defend. However, the city of Chicago has a long history of ban on handgun just like the D.C (Jackson and Johnson).
In the case of McDonald, he was trying to convince the court that the city of Chicago has violated his Constitutional right just like in the Heller case. The city has banned the use of handguns which limit the ability for citizens to protect themselves against violent crime. By referring to the Heller case, the court decided that the Second Amendment is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Because the Heller case has set down that such ban on hand is unconstitutional, the city of Chicago ban on possession of firearms for homes defend is illegal. The Fourteenth Amendment protects the individual rights of every American citizen regardless of race and gender. With these two Amendments combine together, every American citizen living in America now has the right to obtain and carry a handgun for self-defend with or without a military background (Jackson and Johnson).
Thanks to case of District of Columbia v. Heller for it open a new chapter in gun ownership. It is the case that allows Americans to assert their right to carry concealed handguns. As of now late 2013, we can see an increase of Americans carry guns. Before this number is less than million, but it rapidly increases to as many as eleven million over the last few years. However, with the increase number of handgun licenses to citizen more guns related crimes also seem to follow this trend, according to Jonsson in his article "Gun Debate: Is Price of an Armed America a More Dangerous America?" After an incident like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, more proposed laws about gun control come into existence in hopes to reduce crime rates and tragic incident like Sandy Hook Elementary from happening again (Jonsson).
Once again the Heller case plays an important role in the proposed laws about gun control. While the case only dealt with the issues of hand guns for home protection, it is still a case that being brought up by opposition to the gun control laws. The case plays as a symbol for gun owners to fight against firearm restrict. Since most of the proposed laws are such as background checks, made it is illegal to get assault weapons, or limit amount of ammunition of a gun can have (Fields). These laws are perfectly fine and can benefit to reduce the guns related crimes. However, Americans who own guns believe these laws are not different from restriction and keeping of their private personal history. To them there laws are violating their right to keep and bear arms and their right to privacy.
With tragedy like Newtown policy makers are pressured to pass policy that limits guns. Supporter of these laws also believe that the Heller case is right and should be upheld. However, other than that the case should not be interfering with gun policies. It is a symbol for gun activists and it should remain that way as just a symbolic important (Jonsson). While the case does contribute to change the public view gun as a protection, but it also causes concern to the American society. A story like the shooting between Ingram and Webster is one of many examples that suggested our right to bear arms should be reconsidered. Stories compiled by advocates of gun control:
Charles Ingram and Robert Webster were neighbors in Florida, but friends said the two older men had little love for each other and often quarreled. On a spring day in 2010, the two men, both gun enthusiasts who had state permits to carry concealed weapons, got into another argument across their lawns. This time, police later said, both men pulled out their weapons. When Mr. Webster began approaching, Mr. Ingram raised his gun, as did Webster. Two shots rang out simultaneously, and both men fell. Webster died almost instantly, Ingram less than a month later (Jonsson).
Based on the case of Heller, a new law that limits a person from acquiring firearms could be seen as a violation of his/her Second Amendment. While the Heller case can strike down proposed bills on gun control, but it cannot strike down all the bills on gun control. Since the case only addresses the question of who could obtain and carry hand gun for home defend. The decision left out many questions unanswered. One of which is the handgun could be used for defend outside of one’s home? Do firearms other than a handgun allow to be used for home defend? It did specific dealt with weapon other than handguns. Weapons such as assault rifles, machine guns, or any other deadly weapon that uses in wartime does not affected by the case. Even though, the case did allow gun ownership to American citizens. The case still not applies to citizens with a felony history or mental problem (Fields).
The case of District of Columbia v. Heller was the first Supreme Court case that redefined the meaning of the Second Amendment in the twenty first century. It is the case that opens up the road for the use of handgun for home defends. It also changes the perception of Americans toward guns and the uses of guns. While it increases the use of handguns for self-defend in one’s home. It is still not determines that all gun control laws proposed to be unconstitutional. The case should be used as a reference for cases that involve handguns for home defend. The debate on gun control will be continuing on to the future. However, all we know now is that one aspect of the gun control is already set down. That handguns cannot be restricted from obtain and carry for self-defend in one’s home. As for the other question that the case did not answer, all we can do now is wait for these questions to be answered by the Supreme Court.
Works Cited
Carter, Gregg. Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 2012. Print.
Fields, Gary. "New Washington Gun Rules Shift Constitutional Debate." Wall Street Journal. 17 May. 2010: A. 1. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.
Jackson, Kevin, and Eric Johnson. "McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521)." Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School, 30 Mar. 2014. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.
Jonsson, Patrik. "Gun Debate: Is Price of an Armed America a More Dangerous America?" Christian Science Monitor. 02 Feb. 2014: n. p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.