The Second Amendment: A Fundamental Right with Equal Part Responsibility
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution tends to spark either passionate defense or equally passionate calls for reform. But whether you see it as sacred or outdated, one truth remains: the right to bear arms is not absolute. It never has been, and constitutionally, it doesn’t have to be.
So let’s unpack what “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” really means, who it applies to, and who it doesn’t.
Who Is Covered by the Second Amendment?
Thanks to the landmark Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), we know that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, like self-defense in the home. (Heller decision on Oyez)
The Court decisively ruled that this right isn't limited to militia service, putting an end to a long-standing debate. However, and this is crucial, the Court also said this right is "not unlimited."
Who Is Not Covered?
- Convicted Felons
Federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) prohibits felons from possessing firearms. The rationale? Public safety. A person who has committed a serious crime is considered more likely to misuse a firearm. - Domestic Abusers
Individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence or subject to certain restraining orders are banned from owning firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)–(9). Courts have upheld these restrictions to protect victims of intimate partner violence. - People with Mental Illness
Those adjudicated as mentally ill or involuntarily committed are also prohibited from possessing firearms. This is a public safety concern, not a moral judgment. - Undocumented Immigrants and Certain Legal Aliens
Federal law excludes undocumented immigrants and, in some cases, visa holders from legally owning firearms. - Minors
While not a permanent ban, individuals under 18 (or 21 in some contexts) are restricted from purchasing handguns or long guns under federal and state laws. These restrictions aim to balance constitutional rights with maturity and safety concerns.
Why Are These Limits Considered Constitutional?
The key here is reasonableness. In Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:
“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.”
This wasn’t an afterthought—it was a legal disclaimer. The Court knew the Second Amendment wasn’t a lawless playground.
In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Court extended Heller’s ruling to the states, confirming that while the right is “fundamental,” it still allows for regulatory frameworks. (McDonald v. Chicago on Oyez)
Constitutional Challenges: Felons & Gun Rights
That said, there have been challenges to these restrictions.
In Binderup v. Attorney General (2016), a federal court ruled that some non-violent felons shouldn’t be permanently banned from gun ownership, especially when the original conviction was minor. The ruling opened the door for narrow exceptions acknowledging that a one-size-fits-all approach to gun bans might not be ideal.
And in 2023’s Range v. Attorney General, the Third Circuit Court found that a man convicted of a non-violent welfare fraud offense shouldn't lose his Second Amendment rights forever. That’s right, the courts are now grappling with how to balance public safety with proportional justice.
The Real Question: Where Should the Line Be Drawn?
Rights come with responsibilities. The Founding Fathers knew this. That’s why the Second Amendment mentions a “well-regulated” militia. Regulation is baked into the text.
Should we keep disarming all felons? Or should we differentiate between violent and non-violent offenses?
Should domestic violence laws be expanded to include dating partners (currently a gap in federal law)?
Can gun laws be both strong and constitutional? Absolutely.