THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE US CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED ON DECEMBER 15, 1791, AS PART OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS. THE AMENDMENT READS: “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 SECOND AMENDMENT WAS INCLUDED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN RESPONSE TO CONCERNS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MIGHT DISARM STATE MILITIAS, LEAVING THE STATES VULNERABLE TO ATTACK. AT THE TIME, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS WAS ALSO SEEN AS A NECESSARY PROTECTION AGAINST TYRANNY, AS IT ALLOWED CITIZENS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST A POTENTIALLY OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT.
IN THE YEARS THAT FOLLOWED, THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT EVOLVED. IN THE MID-1800S, SOME STATES BEGAN TO PASS LAWS THAT RESTRICTED THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED WEAPONS, AND COURTS UPHELD THESE LAWS AS CONSTITUTIONAL.
IN THE 20TH CENTURY, THE SUPREME COURT TOOK UP A NUMBER OF CASES RELATED TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT. IN THE 1930S, THE COURT UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT, WHICH IMPOSED TAXES AND REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS ON CERTAIN TYPES OF FIREARMS. IN THE 2008 CASE OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, THE COURT RULED THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHT TO POSSESS A FIREARM FOR SELF-DEFENSE IN THE HOME.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF ONGOING DEBATE AND CONTROVERSY IN THE US, WITH ADVOCATES AND OPPONENTS OFFERING DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS AND OPINIONS ON ITS MEANING AND RELEVANCE TO MODERN SOCIETY. THE ISSUE OF GUN CONTROL AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT CONTINUES TO BE A HIGHLY CHARGED AND DIVISIVE TOPIC IN AMERICAN POLITICS.
