The second amendment– the right to bear arms– has remained controversial since the day the Constitution was birthed. Proponents argue that it guarantees the fundamental right to self-defense and protects against government tyranny. Opponents contend that it leads to increased gun violence and that reasonable regulations are necessary to ensure public safety. The debate often centers on differing interpretations of the amendment’s original intent and its applicability in modern society, where mass shootings are more than common. As of today (June 22, 2024), there have been more shootings than days of the year, which especially adds to concerns regarding gun violence.
The Supreme Court recently ruled 8-1 that individuals under domestic-violence restraining orders can be prohibited from owning guns, upholding a 1994 federal law. This decision came in the case of Zackey Rahimi, who continued violent behavior despite a restraining order. The case tested the conservative majority’s new interpretation of the Second Amendment, which emphasizes historical context for modern regulations. Chief Justice Roberts noted that historical practices did include measures to prevent dangerous individuals from accessing weapons, supporting the idea that such regulations align with Second Amendment principles. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that no historical laws justified disarming individuals without a felony conviction.
This ruling signals that contemporary public safety concerns can influence gun regulations, potentially facilitating the survival of measures like background checks and red-flag laws against constitutional challenges. With the increase in mass shootings in recent history, this ruling serves as an example of an effective public policy attempting to better societal conditions.
Ayan Kumar's Blog 