But it’s my RIGHT! I think….

By Vaughn Howard III

Abstract:

The scope of this report was not to focus so much on what the actual second amendment is about

but more about the impact it has on society in a negative connotation and why it would not bode

well for future generations to have this right terminated. I stand firmly in my belief that a

disarmed nation is a vulnerable nation.

One of the hottest topics of debate for the past decade in the United States has been about

the understanding of the second amendment, the right to bear arms. The issues at hand are how

the amendment has sparked great controversy within society over that span of time. The focus of

the report is categorized into three specific aspects of society that appear to be most prevalent

every time a new presidential election draws near. The three sections are historical lack of

clarity, mental illness and guns, and gun restrictions due to violence. The first section will go

into detail on the historical lack of clarity that has existed since the amendment first sparked

debate. No clear understanding has led to misinterpretations and mass confusion and when it

comes to the use of firearms, the last thing one would want in such company is confusion. The

information I have to present under this specific section should serve the sole purpose of

portraying the very issue that has puzzled citizens and decision makers alike for years. The

second section will go over the issue that’s presented at nearly every debate in regards to firearm

rights, mental illness, and guns. It is very easy to make the argument for stricter gun control laws

for everyone whenever a mass shooting occurs, but what if the actual reform were specific to

individuals that suffer from mental deficiencies? The overall rights should not be limited if there

is a solution that primarily focuses on the access to firearms that exists for people with a

checkered mental background. The last section will go over the topic of gun restriction due to

violence. There is a strategy in place that explains why this section follows mental health and

guns. Violence and firearms has been a consistently volatile combination that has sparked the

debate of limiting firearms acquisition altogether. This section will expound on why I think

limiting gun control will not necessarily prevent gun related crimes. I’m not trying to demystify

any of the amendment itself because I firmly believe that there is a reason it has not be clarified

in such a manner already. I only want to highlight what some of the main issues are in regards to

this right and what potential dangers we as a nation could face in the coming years if the

following is not appropriately addressed.

Historical Lack of Clarity

Throughout our country’s brief but tumultuous history, the citizens before my time and

even during my lifetime have struggled to truly clarify what all the right to bear arms includes.

With the turn of each century, there has been a movement to find a new level of understanding of

the right so that it can be more articulately explained and interpreted for those who may not be as

knowledgeable on the subject. The second amendment is currently defined as follows:

“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.”

That being the exact definition of the second amendment, it is not difficult to fathom the idea of

policy makers sitting in a room in the early 19th century trying to understand exactly what that

means and how they could better translate that into layman’s terms. In fact, there was such

confusion as to the interpretation of this right that there were groups of scholars and people that

were split based on their belief of the right and how it should be perceived. There was the

individual rights view, states’ rights view, and later the civics rights view. For the most part, each

was self-explanatory until the civics rights view was adjusted. The individual rights view held

the belief that the right to bear arms existed outside of being a part of the state militia. Meaning,

this group held that firearms were allowed even for private ownership and use and was not solely

restricted to those acting within the interest of the law. (pg. 706, Lindgren) I would directly

identify with this frame of thinking because I wouldn’t want my freedom to be limited to acting

in the interest of the state in order to be entitled to certain privileges. But my frame of thinking is

exactly why there were few supporters for this group, initially. The states’ rights group were

even fewer in numbers because of the amount of contradictory texts and statements made to

support the interest of the state militia. It created quite a conundrum trying to explain how the

amendment was specific to those part of the state militia yet there was not any particular

evidence that says the individual right didn’t exist. While trying to argue that the right was

restricted to members of the militia, they also made the argument that private use was covered

under the right as well. This type of issue is what lead to the creation of the civics rights view,

the states’ rights view was essentially defeating its own cause because of the nonstop

contradiction. The civics rights view operated under the frame of the right being an individual

right but could only be enacted under permission of the state as being a member of the state

militia. This wording is what allowed the states’ rights advocates to express how the right is

individual in nature but is limited and controlled by the state to those citizens who provide

service in honor of the state. Even as this became a new view to replace the states’ rights view, it

still directly opposed those of the individual rights position because it essentially translated to the

right not being spread to all citizens and the state has the final call on who can own and operate

firearms. The most peculiar aspect of the civics rights view is that there’s evidence that shows a

small group of framers and notable political activists were aware of this idea but it wasn’t fully

discussed until the year 2002. It’s odd how such a view that has the ability to alter the entire

perception of the amendment was not even mentioned or introduced until more than two hundred

years after the existence of the right. The term itself appears to have been discovered in a law

review text from Saul Cornell. (pg. 708, Lindgren) Here is a direct example of why the second

amendment still gets so heavily scrutinized. The civics rights view could have very well been set

into motion in 1790 when the idea was first proposed by some of the framers. It could have

dominated that era with the way it was worded and defined and there could have been a clear and

precise defining of the second amendment at that time, yet, it was kept hidden from not only the

public, but some of the other framers as well. If that same proposal were made today, I do not

believe there would be a large amount of support for the civics rights view because of the fact

that this would be defining the right as one that belongs to the individual but is regulated or

controlled by the governing state of residence. I would liken today’s society to that of a

rebellious adolescent who would ponder the very boundaries set forth by an overbearing parent

only to test those boundaries by seeing how much they could get away with before an outright

dispute.

Even as the stage is set in the 18th century, this country still faces the issue of trying to truly

define what all is encompassed in the amendment. Today, we more so deal with the issue of

defining what types of firearms are permitted and what types of citizens are entitled to the right.

The types of firearms in discussion have been those such as fully automatic weapons, machine

weapons, semi-automatic weapons, and it is not limited to just ownership of those weapons, but

open carry of those weapons. The general idea is that it makes for an uneasy scene when strolling

into a local grocery store or shopping mall and seeing an individual strapped with an AK-47

machine gun simply because they have the authority to do so. On a smaller scale, there is a case

that is highlighted by the article that was as recent as 2013 in regards to the right to carry a

concealed handgun. The case of Moore v. Madigan, No. 12-1269 which involved a plaintiff who

was challenging the law of being able to carry a handgun that is loaded and uncased in public.

The right was previously restricted to police officers and security guards, hunters, an individual

on their own property, their own place of business, or as someone that is permitted to carry a

readily accessible weapon by the governing entity of that location. Outside of those parameters, a

gun was not to be loaded and uncased by regular citizens when out in the general public. The

problem with that being is the second amendment has never been stated as not being able to

carry a firearm that is not loaded. It was argued that the right is not expected to include self-

defense, therefore making the law imposed by the state of Illinois valid because it is not violating

the right. The court stated the right was being violated but allowed the legislation 180 days to

incorporate new restrictions that would not undermine the right to bear arms. Essentially, the

court of appeals stated the second amendment includes the right to self-defense inside and

outside of the home and to not allow ready to use weapons infringes on that right. (pg.710,

Lindgren, law.justia.com) This case goes to show that the lack of clarity is still creating a

significant amount of confusion and chaos because subjectivity isn’t something quantifiable.

That case was more than significant in the fact that the state law was still prohibiting the carry of

concealed handguns because they were acting in the interest of public safety. But that same

interest was the state’s undoing as they had to revamp the legislation completely. That means the

state also had an issue with interpreting the right and the way the state of Illinois created their

law in regards to the second amendment was incorrect. Now take a second to let that fully sink

in, an entire state’s legislation had to be revised because of the way that state government

interpreted a “basic” right such as the right to bear arms. I provided the definition of the right

earlier in the report and it has no inferred or underlying messages. The right to self-defense is

never mentioned in the right but it is assumed that is the essential nature of the right. The point I

am making is because of current wording, the second amendment has created more issues

because it has never been accurately addressed to the point of stating whether or not certain guns

are allowed, where the guns are allowed, who is not entitled to the right, or what the right

encompasses in regards to self-defense. The state of Illinois was governing with the idea of

public safety being the most coveted aspect in relation to open carry, but that concept intrudes on

the right to self-defense that naturally comes with the individual right to bear arms. This case

stands to symbolize the never ending battle between the groups of individual rights versus the

civics rights.

Another case of even greater magnitude in regards to the historical lack of clarity is the Supreme

Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 550 U.S.570. This case was as recent as 2008 and

similar to the Moore v. Madigan case, it also had to do with a state law misinterpreting certain

parts of the second amendment to a point of violating that very right and denying a citizen a

privilege they were rightfully entitled to. Dick Heller was a police officer in the DC area who

was authorized to carry a handgun per the provisions of the District of Columbia code. The code

specifically prohibits the carry of any unregistered firearm and the registration of handguns

unless a one year license was granted by the chief of police. The catch was that the handgun had

to be unloaded and disassembled or have a lock on the trigger at all times unless the firearm was

located in a business or if the handgun was being used for appropriate recreational purposes.

Heller wanted to apply for a one year license in order to have a handgun in his home that would

be registered but his application was denied. He filed a lawsuit stating the code violated his

second amendment right to have an operational firearm in his home for the sole purpose of self-

defense. The court disregarded his lawsuit on the grounds that a firearm ca not be operational

and kept in the home. The court of appeals reversed the decision and stated that it is

unconstitutional to not allow someone to keep a loaded and ready to use firearm in the home for

the sole purpose of self-defense. (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290) A deeper

explanation behind the judgment was provided by the late justice Antonin Scalia, he referenced

the fact that the amendment uses the word “militia” and in that time would have referred to able

bodied men who were able to serve in the state militia. The problem with that is the amendment

needs to be translated to modern times in order to appropriately address the issue at hand.

Because state militias were necessary and indicative of that time, that clause cannot be used

against a citizen that is lawfully able to possess a firearm. Scalia also mentions how the

amendment must be applied to practical and commonplace terms in regards to helping the

amendment make more sense in the 21st century. At that time, a militia would have encompassed

any active military personnel and that would create such an issue today since many positions of

work and law enforcement require employees to carry firearms. As a byproduct, we avoid the

same issue that required the colonies to have state militias in the first place because all citizens

have the right to a firearm. This case goes on to further extend my point of how the second

amendment has been subjectively misinterpreted and that has led to states making certain

ordinances and laws based on their own understanding of the law.

It is still mind boggling that this very right has been in existence for over two centuries, yet, with

all technological advances and truths that have been unearthed about this country’s history, this

right remained shrouded in assumptions and clothed in confusion. For that type of neglect to take

place over such an extended period of time, it takes a concentrated effort to avoid having to deal

with the issue of not properly understanding the second amendment. Cottrol provided a critical

opinion as to why he feels legislations and policymakers have avoided the issue of clarity for so

long:

“And there was, of course, another reason that the courts became increasingly unwilling to apply the Second Amendment and seriously examine the extent to which it posed limitations on firearms regulations. Particularly after the turmoil Of the 1960s and the growth of the modem gun control movement, which has Always had a strong prohibitionist contingent in its ranks, more and more Jurists had come to agree with former Harvard Law School Dean Roscoe Pound's view that the Second Amendment was simply too dangerous to be Recognized in modem times.'" Many thought that it would be best, if the Amendment could not be repealed out-right, that the provision be subject to judicial nullification." Lower federal courts increasingly engaged in such Nullification, using numerous variations of the idea that the Amendment only protected the right of states to have militias, or only protected individuals who were actively in militia service” (pg.837, Cottrol)

That quote essentially sums up what has been portrayed by government officials since the

inception of the right. Believing it to be too dangerous of a right to bestow among common

people, even in this day, displays the level of distrust and concern that policy and decision

makers share. It’s not that the idea of what such leaders were sharing is the issue, it is the fact

that this a right that is granted for all citizens unless there is a specific circumstance preventing

such right. The fear that the worst can happen has historically already taken place multiple times

throughout this country’s brief existence isn’t enough for most citizens to even fathom the idea

of not being able to possess a firearm. Cottrol even expands on that point by going further in

detail into pondering how such a right that started out as an individual right could be forcibly

taken and controlled by the state. As a citizen, I would not be in favor of such a shift because of

what has happened in this country because there are times when those that have the power

become too powerful and can become just as dangerous as the ones they swore to protect the

people from. The origin of the right was for citizens that were members of the state militia

because there wasn’t a police force or national force such as the army, navy, marines, etc. As

time has progressed, the need for state militias has dissipated but the second amendment was

never adjusted as such. But observing that very nature of why the amendment was brought to

fruition means it began as an individual right that was essentially controlled by the state. That is

where the problem lies, it’s similar to a parent buying their adult child a car as a gift. The parent

would want the child to use the car properly and be able to take care of his or herself without

relying so much on the parent, but also limiting the adult child to using the car only when it suits

the parent. The purpose of providing a gift of that magnitude is to help the child handle their

adult responsibilities with as little dependability as possible but that parent doesn’t have the right

to stipulate how the vehicle is used. If they’re going to want full control of the vehicle, it

shouldn’t be given to the child for their sole possession. Same thing with the second amendment,

the right, once granted to the people, cannot be withdrawn due to the way the amendment has

been worded. A more cautious approach could have been taken if the right were worded to

include such times as a state of emergency, or during warring times. But that time of exception

or clause was not invoked. That would have been the loophole that helps those who actively

oppose the second amendment and the issues it imposes today. Cottrol makes an even larger

point by stating the decision on the DC v Heller case, the justice vote decision vote was only a 5-

4 majority vote. Take into consideration that this case was not even a full decade ago yet we

have powerful decision makers who are still split on how the second amendment should be

applied or how it should be removed altogether. Cottrol referenced Justice Ginsburg and how

she’s been actively speaking out against the amendment and how it has served its purpose and is

no longer essential in today’s society. Her stance is supported with the perspective that

individuals don’t need to have access to firearms due to the fact that this country has an elite

armed forces collection. (pg. 838, Cottrol) She referenced how a growing country was in need of

any type of defense due to the tension between new America and England as well as other

skirmishes that would arise during such an early and unstable time. The second amendment was

vital for citizens who were able to fight for their safety and in the interest of the state. It is

important to realize that the interest of the state was more important than the right to self-

defense. Ginsburg goes forward with her stance by explaining the obvious, that state militias will

not serve any purpose today’s America therefore making this right barbaric in nature because it’s

so outdated. Cottrol combats the Justice’s stance by retorting with another obvious yet highly

impactful statement as well:

“Justice Ginsburg did not explain, however, why a nation that could not afford an army and had to rely on a broad based militia for its survival had to be reminded, in a constitutional amendment, no less, not to disarm its only means of defense.”

What this statement stands to mean is that the 2nd amendment served as a vital part to defense for

the state and for the individual at the time this was put into law, so even today as we stand in a

country that’s fortunate enough to have such military firepower at our disposal, would it truly be

so wise to disarm our citizens and deprive them of the right to self-defense when we have

domestic violence issues? Are we going to expect the military and law enforcement to handle

any and all issues that arise in the event guns are involved? I would not be in favor of such a

notion because stripping away the right to bear arms doesn’t mean that gun crime would

suddenly disappear from this country’s statistics. Guns are already illegally manufactured,

purchased, and distributed within our country’s border yet there are government officials who

want to remove the right to have a firearm in the home to protect our loved ones from such

criminals? It’s ludicrous to even imagine that gun crime would even decrease minimally with

such a drastic measure.

There are numerous examples as to why the lack of clarity has to be addressed when it comes to

the second amendment. It has led to legislations and state governments creating rules and passing

laws that are incorrect at their very core and directly infringe upon the right to bear arms. We

have political figures who are in charge and carry significant weight and power who are split

right down the middle on what the fate of the amendment should be. There are numerous

powerful figures who share the mindset of Justice Ginsburg who absolutely feel that the second

amendment is too barbaric for today’s America simply because the way it is worded. The very

essence of the amendment has been in question since it was enacted and as long as we allow such

a right to remain so hazy and mystifying, then we as citizens can expect to face this issue every

decade going forward.

Mental Illness & guns

We live in a society where we do not pay much attention to those that suffer from mental

health issues until the problem directly affects everyone in an earth shattering manner. Tragedies

such as mass shootings. I am referring to Columbine, Virginia tech, the Colorado movie theater,

Sandy hooks elementary, and so on. What each of those incidents have in common is that there

was someone who was mentally unstable and they had access to firearms. From that point

forward, every political debate will be about ways to tighten gun control or the extreme

movement to do away with the right to bear arms altogether. It does not sound like a bad idea

when the news is rolling in steady images of police cars and grieving parents on every news

station in the country. It is even more a flattering logic when politicians and other scholars begin

to roll out statistics that represent the Unites States as the country with the largest issue with gun

violence amongst industrialized countries despite having some of the toughest laws on guns. The

problem has already been identified in my opening sentence of this section. This country is not

willing to address the issues we have with mental illness until it is screaming in our face. The

only connection that exists between mentally ill individuals and gun control is that a citizen who

has been diagnosed with the most severe case of schizophrenia still has as much legal capability

and access to owning a firearm as the citizen who has never broken a law. That is where the

firearm rights restoration procedure comes into the equation. The procedure is exactly what it

implies, it is a hearing before a judge in whatever county or state the individual resides in and the

sole purpose is to discuss if the plaintiff legally ready to have their second amendment right

returned to them. The process is not as formal as typical court proceedings but it’s still a serious

matter nonetheless. Plaintiffs are entitled to have a lawyer at the proceedings and in the case that

the plaintiff is a mental health patient, the presiding doctor as well as other mental health

professionals will also be involved to assess the progress of the plaintiff. Now the issue with

these proceedings is that a lot of steps can be skipped in the process and that can either help or

hurt the plaintiff simply because the court chose to save time over doing their due diligence. The

plaintiff’s due process right is neglected in most of these cases and that only becomes a major

concern when the verdict is not in their favor. If someone is denied their right to bear arms after

going through the restoration process, then of course that individual would like more information

as to why that was the outcome; but, if the outcome is favorable, then the due process is not so

much an issue because shortcuts were taken and a desirable outcome was achieved. Robert

Luther, a former attorney who has direct experience with this very issue, has provided vital

information into the firearm rights restoration process because he has been the counsel in a large

number of cases over his tenure as an attorney. One of the issues he has that was of particular

interest to me was in regards to having a hearing if a patient was or was not involuntarily

committed to a mental health institution. A current idea that’s currently being proposed by a state

legislature:

““[d]evelop a mechanism to authorize law enforcement officers to remove firearms when they identify someone who poses an immediate threat of harm to self or others. States should also provide law enforcement with a mechanism to request a warrant authorizing gun removal when the risk of harm to self or others is credible, but not immediate.”67 The Report also recommends that in emergency situations, this authority can be exercised without a warrant”(pg. 381, Luther)

Luther is completely against this type of liberty being taken by the government because of the

threat it poses. The most significant portion of that quote was the final sentence, where it states

that in the event of an emergency, those actions could be taken without a warrant. That

essentially would mean that this legislative idea would be giving law enforcement the authority

to negate someone’s second amendment right based on that officer’s decision and circumstance

at that particular time. That creates so many more issues because then we get into blatant

disregard for constitutional rights simply because of an officer’s perspective. I believe that

Luther more so has a problem with the authority being granted to law enforcement than the

action itself. Without a formal hearing and evidence to support why such a right should be

stricken away, it’s unfair to give power of this magnitude to someone who may not even play a

pivotal role in the actual proceeding. A move of this stature would not be keeping the

government in check because it allows for certain individuals to abuse this power in the event

that they’re creating an issue when there truly isn’t one. Our government and law enforcement

alike have seen their fair share of individuals who have abused the system to their own accord in

order to enact whatever personal vendetta they may have and this would surely be one to add to

that list. Luther refers to the case of Sutterfield v City of Milwaukee (2014) as the case of most

relevance as to why this motion would be an issue. In the case, Sutterfield just wrapped up a visit

with her psychiatrist and uttered a statement that would have suggested she were going to

commit a suicidal act. The psychiatrist called police and asked them to get to Sutterfield’s home

in hopes of making sure she did not harm herself. The concern is heightened due to the fact that

the psychiatrist noticed that Sutterfield was wearing an empty gun holster. Police arrived at her

home shortly after her appointment only to find that no one was there at 2 pm. The offices that

arrived on the call finished their shift at 4:30 pm that same day and passed their call onto the next

officer. That same officer followed up by calling all mental health facilities in the local area

looking for Sutterfield. They officers show up again to Sutterfield’s home, this time around 8:30

pm, almost 9 hours since the initial call was made. Sutterfield is home at this time and police are

requesting to enter the home and speak with her, she denies entry. At that time, because the

officers believed that she was a danger to herself, they forced their entry into the home, arrested

Sutterfield, made her disclose the location of her firearm, and took her to the nearest psychiatric

facility. A civil lawsuit was filed because of her second and fourth amendment rights being

violated. The trial court denied the claim but it was appealed and affirmed by the appeals court.

The officers were correct in their action because they received a call stating someone was an

immediate threat to themselves therefore making the forcible entry and seizure of the firearm

lawful but they were immune from any monetary lawsuits because they were acting under the

color of the law. (http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?

Submit=Display&Path=Y2014/D05-09/C:12-2272:J:Manion:con:T:fnOp:N:1342808:S:0)

This is the type of issue Luther was referring to when he stated that providing this type of

authority to law enforcement would yield these types of issues. Although the officers were acting

within the scope of their obligatory duties, Sutterfield was rendered useless and not even allowed

to speak her piece simply because a psychiatrist took her statement out of context. Dr. Jonathan

Metzl also made reference to this type of law being enacted in the state of Tennessee. (pg. 1,

Metzl)

Hickey proposes the next biggest factor, trying to create a policy that is effective in preventing

mentally ill individuals who are a threat to others or themselves from obtaining firearms. The

largest issue with that is the problem itself is addressing how to legally infringe a particular

person’s constitutional right. There’s no easy way to answer or address that in a positive yet

impactful manner. It becomes the sake of everyone else’s right versus the right of a select group.

It’s hard to imagine how this type of discussion in an open forum would yield anything

productive because the obvious route is to just simply address the problem by declaring anyone

with a specific type of mental disorder, something along the lines of bipolar disorder or

schizophrenia, be banned from having the right to own and operate a firearm. A declaration of

that nature opens up courts for numerous civil lawsuits because no one person’s affliction is the

same as another. The current federal law in place actually falls in line with that type of

declaration, it’s known as the Gun Control Act of 1968. (pg. 2, Hickey) According to Hickey, it

was put into place shortly after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F.

Kennedy. It was enacted by congress and it basically prohibits three types of citizens from being

able to exercise their second amendment right: convicted felons, drug abusers, and adjudicated

persons with a mental illness. This law also curtails the right to purchase firearms if a person

falls into one of those three types of individuals. With this current law, I agree with Hickey as to

why she would like to see a reform over the current federal law. Of the three types of persons

banned from exercising their second amendment right, only one of them can become a person

due to their genetic makeup. Meaning, a person does not decide to become mentally ill like a

person chooses to partake in drugs or in illegal acts that ultimately land them in prison. The

change that Hickey would like to see in the rights restoration process would focus more on the

criteria used to see if someone is fit to have their right restored:

“As state and federal policy makers seek to restrict access to firearms for people with mental illness, they should focus on individual risk factors, such as the individual’s past involvement with the criminal justice system, the individual’s use and abuse of alcohol and controlled substances, and the individual’s current acute risk of violence to self and others.Decisions to confiscate guns and prohibit individuals with mental illness from possessing them, and any decision to restore guns or the right to possess them should be based upon sound clinical judgment with oversight provided through the court system.”(pg. 12, Hickey)

I agree with the idea of implementing those changes going forward because it is taking a broader

view of the individual’s life as a whole instead of the one issue that has led to the right being

withheld. Involvement with the criminal justice system is going to analyze if that person has ever

had any run-ins with the law that would indicate they have a troubled past. A focus on any

addiction like behavior also helps and that is where the study of whether they have ever

experienced any controlling substances. Finally, assessing the amount of danger the person poses

to self and others would be the most significant assessment because a volatile person of the

highest standard becomes even more of a threat if they have access to firearms. The confiscation

of the right after clinical judgment and oversight is a vital part that I feel is being disregarded and

downplayed. Dr. Jonathan Metzl is line with that school of thought in regards to the rights

restoration process. He also believes that mental health professionals should play a more

prominent role in the proceedings than their current status indicates. He’s not saying that

psychiatrists or other mental health professionals should be the quintessential “gatekeepers” but,

they can be helpful in trying to understand why such tragic events occur in people who never

showed any signs of having a mental breakdown. (pg. 4, Metzl)

Gun restriction due to violence

At this point in the report, I have unearthed quite a large amount of knowledge that

portray gun crimes in connection with mental illness but the problem is not solely based on those

that suffer from such afflictions. This country still has an issue with everyday crime in the form

of home invasions, armed robberies, drug and gun smuggling, and much more. Those are all

crimes that almost always involve the use of a gun in an illegal manner. Whether it is the

offender in possession of a firearm illegally or it’s a person protecting their home or self from the

offender for safety reasons. Those are still issues this country faces with gun violence, but the

more prevalent issue the desire to restrict gun laws because there are so many that illegally

obtain firearms.

Hunter Gray is an activist who has openly opposed politicians and legislatures that have been

pushing for gun stricter gun laws since the 1970s. His article provides an in-depth look into his

perspective supported by valid views and references. Gray is a firm believer that changing the

gun laws will not lead to a change in crime and violence involving firearms. One change that he

proposed as an idea was the reimplementation of neighborhood youth corps and an expansion of

mental health outreach programs. (pg. 2, Gray) The neighborhood youth corps would have a

focus on public works employment and it would essentially help with the youth in highly

concentrated urban areas to do positive things their area while gaining valuable work experience

and the ability to make some money legally. That ties to the fact that urban areas have a higher

volume of youth gang activity or drug dealing because of the need to belong to a group or make

a financial impact for their families. The mental health outreach approach would initially be an

educational tool to help the youth understand certain aspects of the things they deal with in their

particular neighborhood but it could also serve as a counseling tool for the youth that may be just

needing someone to talk to about the everyday struggles they experience.

The problem I have with wanting to restrict gun control is that we are essentially weakening a

particular demographic, the law-abiding citizens. If gun laws are enacted to make it stricter to

obtain firearms for everyone, then we are limiting our own ability to protect ourselves. Those

laws wouldn’t make any difference for those that are already illegally in possession of firearms.

Such a move essentially does nothing but lessen the playing field because criminals will be

aware of the fact that many more people will become targets because they won’t be willing to

break the law by having a firearm. What if the change in firearms acquisition were put in to

effect and a situation arises where law enforcement is unable to prevent a tragedy from

happening and there’s a mad gunman threatening to kill? Brett Lunceford has created an article

that enhances the point that restricting firearms rights not only infringes on the second

amendment, but we would be weakening ourselves by essentially showing up to a gun fight

empty handed. Lunceford quoted NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre when he

expressed his belief on the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun: “the only thing that stops a

bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” (pg. 334, Lunceford) That is a strong sentiment to

echo but it makes so much sense on more than one level. It is definitely something to pause for,

whether you are for or against gun restrictions. Lunceford leaps forward in his article by stating

his displeasure with the idea of having to register firearms. It would provide the government with

a roster and inventory of what guns are possessed by what citizen and the discomfort in that lies

with the lack of trust that people generally have with the government in regards to the second

amendment. As I mentioned earlier, it is always in the back of the mind how the government

initially wanted this right to be at their control for the sake of the state militias. The fear lies in

the belief that the government could “renege” at any given time without a strong reason. So

having to register firearms coupled with a full background check on the carrier could lead to

numerous conspiracy theories. (pg. 335, Lunceford)

Erler has provided quite possibly the most profound statement in regards to the second

amendment and why the right should not be restricted:

“The people never can cede or delegate this ultimate expression of sovereign power. Thus, in a very important sense, the right of revolution (or even its threat) is the right that guarantees every other right. If the people have this right as an indefeasible aspect of their sovereignty, then, by necessity, the people also have a right to the means to revolution. Only an armed people are a sovereign people, and only an armed people are a free people—the people indeed are a militia”(pg. 12, Erler)

Just before this quote, Erler referenced how the people and the government essentially have a

social contract which allows the government to rule or make decisions in favor of the people as

long as it is within good nature. The quote expands on the notion that the people are sovereign as

long as they remain armed, or have the ability to remain armed. With that sovereignty, they also

are a militia, of sorts, because they are able to arm themselves if the time calls for it. In that

respect, the second amendment directly applied to the people then just as much as it does now. If

a government becomes destructive then the people, acting in good conscience, are able to cede

their support which essentially weakens the government. How else can the government exist if

there is no one to govern?

Final Word

The second amendment has become such a polarizing topic because it has been a well-

documented battle over the past two centuries but we still do not know any more than the

framers knew about the amendment at the time of its inception in the late 1700s. As a nation, I

do not see how the divide can ever be mended because of the strong bias that exists on both sides

of the proverbial fence. The party in favor of keeping gun rights understand, to some degree, that

this is a right that we are entitled to under the same constitution that outlines all our other

liberties. On the other side, there are many people who have fallen victim or have lost a loved

one due to firearms and violence. It sounds much better to just do away with guns altogether, but,

what would that alleviate? Sure, maybe there would be a brief period where there were no gun

crimes, but the problem would not exterminate itself. Gun crimes that are committed are largely

committed by individuals who have complete disregard for the current gun laws in effect. Let us

not remove ourselves from a fight for fear of what could happen, the worst has already happened

and will continue to happen. At the very least, we must accept that.

Works Cited:

o Cite: LUTHER III, R. (2016). TAKING AIM AT RECENT LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO CURB GUN

VIOLENCE FROM MENTAL ILLNESS: A SECOND AMENDMENT RESPONSE. Harvard Journal On

Legislation, 53(1), 369-386.

o LINDGREN, J. (2015). Forward: The Past And Future Of Guns. Journal Of Criminal Law &

Criminology, 104(4), 705-716.

o Gray, H. (2016). Our Guns, Our Rights: On The Social Roots of Violence. Against The Current,31(181), 6-7

o : Hickey, J. D. (2013). Gun Prohibitions for People with Mental Illness - What Should the Policy Be?

Developments In Mental Health Law, 32(3), 1-12.

o : LUNCEFORD, B. (2015). ARMED VICTIMS: THE EGO FUNCTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT

RHETORIC. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 18(2), 333-345.

COTTROL, R. J. (2014). SECOND AMENDMENT: NOT CONSTITUTIONAL DYSFUNCTION BUT

NECESSARY SAFEGUARD. Boston University Law Review, 94(3), 835-848

ERLER, E. J. (2013). GUNNING DOWN PERSONAL FREEDOM. USA Today Magazine,142(2818), 10.

o : Metzl, J. M. (2015). Gun Violence, Stigma, and Mental Illness: Clinical Implications. Psychiatric

Times, 32(3), 1-6.