The Second Amendment and Fully Automatic Weapons: Clarifying the Legal Framework
Questions regarding the Second Amendment and the protection of fully automatic weapons often arise, especially in the context of gun control debates. Many argue that the Founding Fathers, when writing the Constitution, did not foresee the technological advancements in arms we see today. However, the interpretation and applicability of the Second Amendment to modern weapons remain a subject of much discussion and legal debate. In this article, we will explore the current legal understanding of the Second Amendment in relation to fully automatic weapons, backed by historical and legal precedents.
Protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states:
“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.”
Digital rights proponents and legal scholars often emphasize that the Second Amendment is intended to protect the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, rather than to grant additional rights. The term “arms” as used in the Second Amendment is broad, encompassing all types of weapons, including fully automatic weapons, if they are legally owned.
Historical Precedents and Supreme Court Rulings
Several key Supreme Court cases have helped clarify the Second Amendment's application. In the 19th century, two significant cases established the foundation for modern gun rights. Specifically, United States v. Cruikshank (1875) and United States v. Miller (1939) laid out important precedents that helped define the scope of the Second Amendment.
United States v. Cruikshank (1875): This case affirmed that the guarantees provided by the Second Amendment are not applicable to the states, but they are protected by the 14th Amendment.
United States v. Miller (1939): This case addressed whether an unregistered firearm fell within the Second Amendment's protection. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment only protects arms that have a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” This left room for interpretation and has been used to argue that fully automatic weapons, which are not typically used in a militia, fall outside the Second Amendment's protection.
Modern Cases and Interpretations
More recent Supreme Court cases have further clarified the scope and applicability of the Second Amendment. Notably, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and Macheasy v. District of Columbia (2010) reinforced the individual right to keep and bear arms.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): The Court held that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Macheasy v. District of Columbia (2010): This case further clarified that the Second Amendment applies to the District of Columbia and implied that it would apply to other states as well.
The Extent of Protection
The extent to which fully automatic weapons are protected under the Second Amendment is a point of considerable debate. While historical and legal scholars agree that the Second Amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms for individuals, the term “arms” as used in the amendment is interpreted to include all types of weapons, including fully automatic weapons, if they are legally owned. This is supported by the interpretation of the term “arms” as being all-inclusive, as the Second Amendment does not specifically mention firearms.
However, it is also important to consider the 9th Amendment, which states:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The 9th Amendment has been cited by those advocating for the protection of unenumerated rights, including the use of fully automatic weapons. The argument is that since the Second Amendment does not specifically mention fully automatic weapons, they are still considered protected under the amendment.
Conclusion
The Second Amendment's protection of fully automatic weapons is a complex legal issue with multiple interpretations. While the Second Amendment grants an individual right to keep and bear arms, the protection can vary based on legal and historical context. Courts have often relied on historical precedents, such as United States v. Miller (1939), to determine the scope of the Second Amendment, but recent cases have reinforced the individual right to bear arms. As with any legal issue, a thorough understanding of the amendment and its application is crucial.