by Rhodes M. Martinez
Introduction
From the foundation of our country to the victories of the several wars that our great nation has achieved, they have all had one thing that propels us towards success: Firearms. During the American Revolution, the French supplied the Continental Army with Charleville flintlock muskets, with which our men fought back the British forces and gained our freedom. During the first and second World Wars, the Springfield and M1 Garand rifles slashed through enemy forces, resulting in victory on all fronts. However, what about the darker sides of these weapons and the rights and restrictions that these instruments inspired throughout their history?
The Second Amendment was put in place so that all Americans could bear and protect themselves with arms, was it not? Gun control has been a disputed issue for more than a century, creating divides and tension between those for and against it. One group that opposes the very idea of gun control is the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), founded in 1871 as an organization devoted “to protect the U.S. Constitution, especially as regards the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms; to promote public safety and national defense; to train members of law enforcement, the military, the militia, and people of good repute in marksmanship and safety; to promote the shooting sports, including amateur competitions from the local to international levels; and to promote hunting and conservation.” The NRA has become a major pro-gun rights organization as the idea of gun control has become more prevalent. But how has the unclear definition of the Second Amendment, in regards to gun rights and gun control, and new gun laws that restrict the “right to bear arms” helped mold the NRA into a more influential gun lobbying organization than others? Why has the NRA reacted the way they have to the various gun control laws that restrict gun rights?
The NRA has been fueled by the anger of pro-gun Americans. The opposition against them by gun-control movements propel their political importance forward. As everything has an equal and opposite reaction, the NRA stands as this response to the increasing amount of gun control in the United States. From the rise of Gun Control, the NRA has grown as a Gun Lobbying organization to stand as the opposite force to gun control. Even though the Association may not be using the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment, the First Amendment Right to freedom of speech protects them. Therefore, they can spread their beliefs with impunity.
The Second Amendment: What Does It Mean
The Second 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 literal meaning of the Amendment as the founding fathers intended it has been debated ever since the question of gun control was introduced. The most known and commonly thought definition of the Amendment is that all Americans have the right to own, store, and use arms. The Second Amendment has caused many challenges to gun regulation charges and continues to be one of the most disputed issues in America.
However, this is not the definition that all Americans share. The Supreme Court has recognized the primary function of the Amendment is to protect “the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” This definition is disputed as well by those who believe that it is a fundamental right to own and use firearms. The other, more court acknowledged definition of the Second Amendment does not protect an individual American citizen’s “right” to keep and bear arms. This alternate interpretation protects the right to a well-regulated militia, our present-day National Guard. Two major Supreme Court cases, United States vs. Miller and District of Columbia vs. Heller, have proven these two interpretations to be correct in a sense. Ruling at two different cases that the Second Amendment protects “the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia” and that the Amendment “guarantees an individual right to have unused arms for self-defense.”
The National Rifle Association of America
The NRA was founded by two Union officers in the American Civil war, during which they saw their soldiers not knowing anything about how to handle and use a firearm properly. The Association became an enormous success immediately, training young men all over the Country in the ways of riflery. The NRA was a sanctuary for sportsmen, marksmen, and just outdoorsmen in which a person could become a member of virtually a club, and receive top tier education and guidance. The NRA helped train American soldiers in both World Wars, improving the chances of the men going overseas to fight. The NRA had claimed membership to strong American powers over time, including Theodore Roosevelt. This support gained the organization a small amount of political power, in the form of influence over individual congress members.
The Emergence of Gun Control
The gun-control movement was kicked off mainly by the Sullivan Act of 1911. This law made “the carrying of concealed weapons a felony, required those using revolvers and small arms to obtain licenses from police Magistrates, and provides for the registration… of all persons who buy revolvers or similar weapons.” This Act was the first gun bill passed that can be called “gun-control,” meaning that it was the first law to restrict the previous rights of gun owners. The NRA was in high opposition to this from the moment the bill was announced. They saw it as an attack on American freedom and were furious that the government allowed this to happen. However, due to its small number of members, and its limited political power, the NRA’s voice was drowned out, and the law was passed. The passing of the Act was the unofficial beginning of the NRA’s transformation into a lobbying power. The Sullivan Act had challenged the idea that all Americans should have the irrefutable right to bear arms with no restrictions, and through this, the Act had effectively challenged the NRA! The Association knew that changes in gun laws would break the fundamentals and foundation upon which the NRA resided, and they were not going down without a fight.
The NRA became set on becoming a gun-lobbying power after the Sullivan Act became more commonplace in America. As the Country modernized, the NRA learned to accept the new law and return to its usual goings-on, due to the fact the Sullivan Act had become a permanent part of the Country, and it was here to stay. The Association had accepted the new laws but had not accepted defeat. However, in 1934, the National Firearms Act(NFA) was passed, drawing the protest of the NRA. The NFA was a response to gang violence and organized crime in America, such as the Mafia. The Act imposed a $200(equal to $3,000 today) on "a shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun." The country included thr NRA as a part of the NFA discussion, and the President of the NRA, Karl Fredrick, spoke on behalf of state gun regulation. “During the course of his testimony, Fredrick expressed concern that the National Firearms Act would hinder the ability of rural residents to procure handguns for personal protection.” Fredrick and the NRA did not necessarily want to stop the spread of gun regulation, but rather the spread of gun control. As a result of his testimony, Fredrick managed to get handguns removed from the restrictions of the NFA. The removal of handguns from the NFA was the first major show of political and lobbying power that the Association began to show more aggressively in years to come.
United States vs. Miller
The NFA was only in place for five years before a significant Supreme Court case, United States vs. Miller, questioned the rights given to a person by the Second Amendment. “An Arkansas federal district court charged Jack Miller and Frank Layton with violating the National Firearms Act of 1934 (‘NFA’) when they transported a sawed-off double-barrel 12-gauge shotgun in interstate commerce. Miller and Layton argued that the NFA violated their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.” The District Court used the definition of the Second Amendment that guaranteed a person the right to bear arms and declared that the NFA violated the Second Amendment. When the Supreme court found out the results of the trial, they called the case to Washington. They revised the verdict using the alternate definition of the Second Amendment: the protection of “the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” With this new verdict, Jack Miller and Frank Layton were found guilty of violating the NFA.
The case sparked an outcry from the NRA against the Supreme Court. They were angry that the Supreme Court had violated the Second Amendment. The reasoning for this is the same reasons that drew Miller and Layton to the attention of the Supreme Court: THEIR definition of the Second Amendment. The NRA’s “continuous omission of the ‘well regulated militia’” is what they base their argument on. This interpretation is the weapon that the NRA uses so well and often. The Association realized that without a clear definition from the Founding Fathers, they could challenge any case that was made against gun rights. United States vs. Miller was the point in which the NRA became a real lobbying power because this case was the point at which the Association realized that they could exploit the unclear definition and wording of the Second Amendment. Miller and Layton had unintentionally opened the gates to an exponential growth of Lobbying Power to the NRA, and the Association was going to take the chance. The next step that would increase the popularity of the NRA was WWII. “After the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, gun control proposals became irrelevant. The NRA's role was to train soldiers in marksmanship. Some 1.75 million men went through the NRA's preinduction rifle training program.”
The Birth of Modern Gun Control
After the Assassinations of John F. Kenedy and Martin Luther King Jr, Congress passed the Gun Control Act of 1968. The Act “contained the most significant restrictions on firearms since Congress enacted the National Firearms Act (NFA) in 1934.” The primary function of the Gun Control Act made it illegal to purchase a firearm from someone in another state. “In his 1968 State of the Union address, [President] Johnson exhorted Congress to pass a gun control law that would stop ‘mail order murder.’” The NRA quickly retaliated with its lobbying force, demanding the removal of the Act under their Second Amendment right. This law inspired massive outcry from the pro-gun community, which in turn recieved protest from the gun-control movement. The Gun Control Act had effectively turned the two sides of gun politics decisively against each other with unbridled force. This was no thanks to the NRA. With almost 1 million members in 1968, “the NRA mailed a letter to its members calling for them to write their members of Congress to oppose any new firearms laws. Using hyperbole and emotionally charged rhetoric, NRA President Harold W. Glassen wrote that the right of sportsmen to obtain, own, and use firearms for legal purposes was in grave jeopardy.” The NRA was using conservative scare tactics: THEY WANT TO TAKE YOUR RIGHTS! RETALIATE! They knew that Congress could not stop them from spreading fear, whether the information that they told their members was factual or not.
The next significant act of retaliation that the Association performed happened in 1998 in response to the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act. “The Brady Law imposed as an interim measure a waiting period of 5 days before a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may sell, deliver, or transfer a handgun to an unlicensed individual.” Of course, the NRA saw this not as an attempt to make the Country safer from people who should not have guns, but as a restriction of gun-rights. However, they reacted differently than they had before. Without outrightly opposing the idea of background checks, but the waiting period. The NRA wanted a law that accomplished “real crime control and, at the same time, upholds the rights of law-abiding citizens and firearms dealers.” The NRA was all for CRIME control; they only opposed gun control. They believed that the former is the problem that the government is trying to solve by enforcing the latter. Their suggestion to Congress was “an instant-check system on handgun-permit applications, which does not delay purchases by law-abiding citizens… which conducts records checks in minutes.” This “instant check” system began to be implemented in state legislatures and townships across America. The system was a prime example of the NRA’s growing lobbying power at its full potential. The NRA had become even more entwined with the national debate and, more importantly, the decision on gun-rights, regulation, and control.
District of Columbia vs. Heller
United States vs. Miller was one of the first major Supreme Court cases that challenged the right to bear arms. The next major movement of the definition of the Second Amendment would come almost 70 years later, in District of Columbia vs. Heller. This case challenged the law put in place in Washington DC that “required owners of lawfully registered firearms to keep them unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or other similar device unless the firearms were located in a place of business or being used for legal recreational activities.” A police officer, Dick Anthony Heller, sued the District of Columbia on the charge that this law was a violation of his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The NRA supported Heller fully with his testimony. The significance of this case is the definition that the Supreme Court used this time. As shown in United States vs. Miller, the Supreme Court decided that the Second Amendment only protected the right to a well regulated militia. In District of Columbia vs. Heller, though, Justice Scalia declared “that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to have unused arms for self-defense in the home and that the District's handgun ban as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be rendered inoperative, violates that right.” The Supreme Court held that Scalia was right in his verdict.
All though SCOTUS ruled in favor of Heller, it was just barely so as 5-4 majority won the ruling. Associate Justice John Paul Stevens led the dissent. In his dissent or his argument against the ruling, Stevens said: “In [the opposed justices] view, there is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in urban areas.” The three other Justices that voted with Stevens chimed into the dissent with similar statements. However, the ruling stood, and the District Code was found in violation of the Second Amendment. This ruling was a turning point for the gun-rights movement. The Supreme Court had recognized the pro-gun definition of the Second Amendment as the correct interpretaion of the Amendment. By doing this, the Supreme Court had unknowingly given the NRA the thumbs up that their pro-gun rights interpretation was correct. The NRA knew that this would help their case against the gun-control movement. With this new assurance from the Supreme Court, the Association could confidently put a more aggressive foot forward with the intent to convince the public that their Second Amendment Right was being violated.
The NRA and Conservative Republicanism
Perhaps one of the most obvious reasons that the NRA has such steadfast ideology surrounding the gun-rights movement is the influence of Conservative Republican leadership that controls the Association. The Conservative view is based around the idea that change is adverse. In other words, “if it ain't broke, don’t fix it.” This is the view that pushes the NRA’s unchanging view behind the Second Amendment. The very first Bylaw of the NRA is “to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially with reference to the inalienable right of the individual American citizen guaranteed by such Constitution to acquire, possess, collect, exhibit, transport, carry, transfer ownership of, and enjoy the right to use arms.” Over the entire course of the NRA’s history, with outside influence, protest, and opposition, the Association still refuses to revise their view on the Second Amendment. The very foundation of a conservative idea is based on permanence. This unwillingness to change causes a stubbornness to the idea in question, where the person or group that believes the idea in question to be accurate will never agree with anyone who thinks otherwise. It is this that causes the NRA to lead “a pro-Republican course in response to Democratic-led efforts to enact gun control law.”
It is reasonable to say that, mostly, the pro-gun rights agenda is a Republican agenda, whereas the pro-gun control agenda is a Democratic agenda. These two parties have stood against and with each other throughout American History, but it seems that as the Country and world evolved, they have increasingly become more and more split. The Republican Party has stood against the Democrats on several issues for the sole purpose of preventing change, as well as standing as the equal and opposite reaction, that everything must have, to the Democrats. This is the same for the NRA lead gun-rights movement against the gun-control movement. The NRA refuses to back down as long as their ideology is questioned. “Surveys show that about two-thirds of the NRA members who cast ballots voted Republican in 1994. Union members who belong to the NRA or lean toward an NRA agenda may have been personally predisposed to vote according to the wishes of this single-issue group.”
Confusion of the Second Amendment
The definition of the Second Amendment can only be fully determined and defined by the Supreme Court, as they seem to intervene in cases such as Miller and Heller when the rights given by the Amendment are questioned or misinterpreted. This is a suspicious way of defining an Amendment that holds so much weight because if the Supreme court can simply switch back and forth between interpretations, like from “the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia” to “the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to have unused arms for self-defense.” If the Supreme Court can not decide on a definite interpretation and effectively amend the current Second Amendment to a clear and concise reading that offers no room for negotiation of true definition, then the battle between gun-rights and gun-control will never end. The law is the law and cannot and should not be open to interpretation. If there is uncertainty in our laws, then we do not have strong legislation after which to set our lives.
As long as this uncertainty exists in the Second Amendment, the NRA can continue their “First Amendment right of freedom of speech to repeat their misinformed rhetoric.” The right of freedom of speech combined with conservative ideology creates a deadly combination of immovable, ill-informed “truth” that is called as such just so that it will be believed, not that it is the truth. Combine this with the anxious and conservative mind of almost 45% of Americans, and the NRA can spew facts and lies, with no question of which is which.
Conclusion
Miller And Heller are the two sides of the disputed definition of the Second Amendment, but which one is correct? It is a combination of both, but mostly Miller, that is needed to supply satisfaction for both sides of the argument. The prevailing question above all others is this: Should firearms be legal for American citizens not enrolled in the military or such occupations that require the specific use of firearms? If firearms were unrestricted, then that means that ill-minded and malicious people would have access to these deadly weapons, and without question would be able to obtain and use firearms that could and would result in several lethal situations. However, if no firearms were legal to anyone but the military, then people would feel that the government was disarming the people as to keep them under control, which replicates such regimes as Hitler and Stalin.
The truth is that our country needs gun laws that place strict laws requiring thorough and in-depth background checks. As for automatic firearms, they serve no purpose to the public other than harm and should be designated ONLY for military use. These laws would protect our citizens against the terrors of gun-related crime. Guns are magnificent achievements of human ingenuity, and when and only when used correctly and safely, produce a great source of satisfaction and joy, the NRA is correct on that front. However, guns are only as safe as the people that wield them. So getting rid of guns will not decrease the amount of malicious minded people, but it will give those individuals significantly less access to firearms. The NRA and gun-rights extremists might say that these proposed laws would be unfair to those that have no records that would restrict their access to firearms. The argument for this is simple: if there is nothing to hide, then why hide it?