On Target – Second Amendment

This article is the final installment of On Target, a three-part series on guns and violence in America. Past articles covered school safety and Wisconsin gun legislation.

Out of all the amendments to the U.S. Constitution the Second seems to be the one that gets the most attention, at least since the December elementary school shooting encouraged a national discussion on gun rights and gun violence.

Amendment II: 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 says 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. It has been upheld by Supreme Court decisions and many states, including Wisconsin, have written similar arms rights into their constitutions.

Finding ways to control gun violence while upholding the Second Amendment is the challenge states, municipalities and advocates face. The one-sentence amendment means different things to different people, causing debates locally and nation-wide.

“My understanding of the Second Amendment as it applies to an individual’s possession of firearms was that the Second Amendment, when it was crafted by the founding fathers and the way it had been interpreted for almost two centuries in this country, was a protection of the states – government entities – from overarching of the royalist government,” said Door County District Attorney Ray Pelrine.

Jeff Nass, president of Wisconsin FORCE (Firearm Owners, Ranges, Clubs & Educators Inc), the state’s National Rifle Association group, disagrees. For him, the Second Amendment is clear.

“You can argue all day, but if you can read you understand that it is your right to keep and bear arms,” Nass said. “There’s not a question if you look at it honestly.”

When Nass interprets the Second Amendment, he swaps the term “militia” for “person.” He said a militia is really a group of law-abiding citizens, people, banding together to stop evil. He doesn’t think militias have to be formal, organized or practiced, so rights given to militias should also be given to individuals.

Pelrine has a stricter definition of militia. He said the Second Amendment wasn’t meant to deal with individuals, but to give states protection against the Federal government. It was adopted on Dec. 15, 1791, eight years after the American Revolutionary War.

“It was a protection for states’ abilities to raise militias and keep them armed and ready,” Pelrine said.

In 2008, the US Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment (in the District of Columbia v. Heller) and said it applies to an individual’s right to bear arms. In 2010, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, it ruled that states and municipalities can’t create laws that infringe the Second Amendment. While it ruled individuals have the right to bear arms, the court still allowed governments to regulate firearms.

“They kind of laid out a list of things that they were saying,” said Jeri Bonavia, Executive Director of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort. “[But] these decisions don’t, or shouldn’t, impede upon the efforts to maintain safe communities.”

The Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort advocates for more thorough background checks that include mental health issues and drug abuse for all gun sales.

In Wisconsin, background checks are only required when guns are sold at stores. Private gun sales do not require background checks.

Nass isn’t willing to negotiate over background checks. He said background checks only inconvenience law-abiding citizens, but don’t affect criminals who buy guns illegally.

“We don’t want them telling us what to do,” Nass said. “It’s our right.”

He does, however, agree that not forcing people to own guns could be a middle ground between gun rights and gun control.

But parties can agree when it comes to criminals who use guns. Nass supports stricter penalties for people who commit crimes with firearms so people who misuse guns are punished.

According to a Pew Research Center survey, 85 percent of people supported background checks for private and gun show sales, and 67 percent were in favor of a creating a federal database to track gun sales.

Finding a common ground on the national level is another challenge, but a Pew Research Center survey found broad public support for gun policy proposals.

Eighty-five percent of people surveyed supported background checks for private and gun show sales, and 67 percent were in favor of creating a federal database to track gun sales.

That consensus could be the starting point for gun control discussions at the capital. In his State of the Union address on Feb. 12 President Barack Obama addressed gun control measures he’s proposed, which include requiring criminal background checks on all firearm sales, limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds and financing mental health programs.

“Overwhelming majorities of Americans – Americans who believe in the Second Amendment – have come together around common sense reform – like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun,” Obama said in his State of the Union speech.