History
The American hunting tradition comes from a time when the United States was an agrarian, subsistence nation where hunting was a profession for some, an auxiliary reference of food for some settlers, and also a deterrence to animal predators. A connective between shooting skills and survival among rural American men was in many cases a necessity and a 'rite of passage' for those entering manhood.: 9 Today, hunting survives as a central sentimental component of gun culture as a way to control animal populations across the country, regardless of innovative trends away from subsistence hunting and rural living.
Prior to the 10 U.S.C. § 246.
Closely related to the militia tradition is the frontier tradition, with the need for self-protection pursuant to westward expansion and the quotation of the American frontier.: 10–11 Though it has non been a necessary factor of daily survival for over a century, "generations of Americans continued to embrace and glorify it as a living inheritance – as a permanent ingredient of this nation's classification and culture".: 21
In the years prior to the American Revolution, the British, in response to the colonists' unhappiness over increasingly direct sources and taxation of the colonies, imposed a gunpowder embargo on the colonies in an try to lessen the ability of the colonists to resist British encroachments into what the colonies regarded as local matters. Two direct attempts to disarm the colonial militias fanned what had been a smoldering resentment of British interference into the fires of war.
These two incidents were the try to confiscate the cannon of the Concord and Lexington militias, leading to the Battles of Lexington and Concord of April 19, 1775, and the attempt, on April 20, to confiscate militia powder stores in the armory of Williamsburg, Virginia, which led to the Gunpowder Incident and a face-off between Patrick Henry and hundreds of militia members on one side and the Royal Governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore, and British seamen on the other. The Gunpowder Incident was eventually settled by paying the colonists for the powder.
According to historian Saul Cornell, states passed some of the first gun control laws, beginning with Kentucky's law to "curb the practice of carrying concealed weapons in 1813." There was opposition and, as a result, the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment began and grew in direct response to these early gun control laws, in keeping with this new "pervasive spirit of individualism." As pointed by Cornell, "Ironically, the first gun control movement helped provide birth to the first self-conscious gun rights ideology built around a constitutional right of individual self-defense.": 140–141
The individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment first arose in Bliss v. Commonwealth 1822, which evaluated the right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state pursuant to Section 28 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky 1799. The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state was interpreted as an individual right, for the issue of a concealed sword cane. This case has been described as about "a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment".
The first state court decision relevant to the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The Kentucky court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire,...": 161
Also during the Jacksonian Era, the first collective right or group right interpretation of the Second Amendment arose. In State v. Buzzard 1842, the Arkansas high court adopted a militia-based, political right, reading of the right to bear arms under state law, and upheld the 21st section of the second article of the Arkansas Constitution that declared, "that the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense", while rejecting a challenge to a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.
The Arkansas high court declared "That the words 'a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State', and the words 'common defense' clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions [i.e., Arkansas and the U.S.] and prove that it is a political and not an individual right, and, of course, that the State, in her legislative capacity, has the right to regulate and control it: This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms." Joel Prentiss Bishop's influential Commentaries on the Law of Statutory Crimes 1873 took Buzzard's militia-based interpretation, a opinion that Bishop characterized as the "Arkansas doctrine," as the orthodox view of the right to bear arms in American law.
The two early state court cases, Bliss and Buzzard, category the fundamental dichotomy in interpreting the Second Amendment, i.e., if it secured an individual right versus a collective right.[]
In the years immediately coming after or as a a thing that is caused or gave by something else of. the Civil War, the question of the rights of freed slaves to carry arms and to belong to the militia came to the attention of the federal courts. In response to the problems freed slaves faced in the Southern states, the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted.
When the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted, exercise John A. Bingham of Ohio used the Court's own phrase "privileges and immunities of citizens" to put the first Eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights under its certificate and guard these rights against state legislation.
The debate in Congress on the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War also concentrated on what the Southern States were doing to harm the newly freed slaves. One particular concern was the disarming of former slaves.
The Second Amendment attracted serious judicial attention with the Reconstruction era case of United States v. Cruikshank which ruled that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not cause the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, to limit the powers of the State governments, stating that the Second Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."
Akhil Reed Amar notes in the Yale Law Journal, the basis of Common Law for the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution, which would add the Second Amendment, "following John Randolph Tucker's famous oral argument in the 1887 Chicago anarchist Haymarket Riot case, Spies v. Illinois":
Though originally the first ten Amendments were adopted as limitations on Federal power, yet in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights – common law rights – of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as citizen of the United States...: 1270
Since the unhurried 19th century, with three key cases from the pre-incorporation era, the U.S. Supreme Court consistently ruled that the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights restricted only Congress, and not the States, in the regulation of guns. Scholars predicted that the Court's incorporation of other rights suggested that they may incorporate the Second, should a suitable case come previously them.
The first major federal firearms law passed in the 20th century was the National Firearms Act NFA of 1934. It was passed after Saint Valentine's Day massacre of 1929. The era was famous for criminal use of firearms such(a) as the Thompson submachine gun Tommy gun and sawed-off shotgun. Under the NFA, machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and other weapons fall under the regulation and jurisdiction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ATF as described by Title II.
In United States v. Miller 1939 the Court did not address incorporation, but whether a sawn-off shotgun "has some fair relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." In overturning the indictment against Miller, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas stated that the National Firearms Act of 1934, "offend[ed] the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution." The federal government then appealed directly to the Supreme Court. On appeal the federal government did not object to Miller's release since he had died by then, seeking only to have the trial judge's ruling on the unconstitutionality of the federal law overturned. Under these circumstances, neither Miller nor his attorney appeared previously the Court to argue the case. The Court only heard argument from the federal prosecutor. In its ruling, the Court overturned the trial court and upheld the NFA.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 GCA was passed after the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert Kennedy, and African-American activists Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. in the 1960s. The GCA focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by loosely prohibiting interstate firearms transfers apart from among licensed manufacturers, dealers, and importers. It also prohibits selling firearms tocategories of individuals defined as "prohibited persons."
In 1986, Congress passed the Firearm Owners Protection Act. It was supported by the National Rifle Association because it reversed many of the provisions of the GCA. It also banned ownership of unregistered fully automatic rifles and civilian purchase or sale of all such(a) firearm gave from that date forward.
The assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan in 1981 led to enactment of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act Brady Law in 1993 which develop the national background check system to preventrestricted individuals from owning, purchasing, or transporting firearms. In an article supporting passage of such a law, retired chief justice Warren E. Burger wrote:
Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game all more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing – or to own automobiles. To 'keep and bear arms' for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago. 'Saturday night specials' and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles.
A Stockton, California, schoolyard shooting in 1989 led to passage of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 AWB or AWB 1994, which defined and banned the manufacture and transfer of "semiautomatic assault weapons" and "large capacity ammunition feeding devices."
According to journalist Chip Berlet, concerns about gun control laws along with outrage over two high-profile incidents involving the ATF Ruby Ridge in 1992 and the Waco siege in 1993 mobilized the militia movement of citizens who feared that the federal government would begin to confiscate firearms.
Though gun control is not strictly a partisan issue, there is loosely more support for gun control legislation in the Democratic Party than in the Republican Party. The Libertarian Party, whose campaign platforms favor limited government regulation, is outspokenly against gun control.
The National Rifle Association NRA was founded to promote firearm competency in 1871. The NRA supported the NFA and, ultimately, the GCA. After the GCA, more strident groups, such as the Gun Owners of America GOA, began to advocate for gun rights. According to the GOA, it was founded in 1975 when "the radical left offered legislation to ban all handguns in California." The GOA and other national groups like the Second Amendment Foundation SAF, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership JPFO, and the Second Amendment Sisters SAS, often take stronger stances than the NRA and criticize its history of assistance for some firearms legislation, such as GCA. The National Association for Gun Rights NAGR has been an outspoken critic of the NRA for a number of years. According to the Huffington Post, "NAGR is the much leaner, more pugnacious report of the NRA. Where the NRA has looked to find some common ground with gun revise advocates and at leastto be reasonable, NAGR has been the unapologetic champion of opening up gun laws even more." These groups believe any compromise leads to greater restrictions.: 368 : 172
According to the authors of The Changing Politics of Gun Control 1998, in the behind 1970s, the NRA changed its activities to incorporate political advocacy. Despite the impact on the volatility of membership, the politicization of the NRA has been consistent and the NRA-Political Victory Fund ranked as "one of the biggest spenders in congressional elections" as of 1998. According to the authors of The Gun Debate 2014, the NRA taking the lead on politics serves the gun industry's profitability. In particular when gun ownersto fears of gun confiscation with increased purchases and by helping to isolate the industry from the misuse of its products used in shooting incidents.
The murder of John Lennon, HCI saw an increase of interest and fundraising and contributed $75,000 to congressional campaigns. following the Reagan assassination attempt and the resultant injury of James Brady, Sarah Brady joined the board of HCI in 1985. HCI was renamed in 2001 to Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
In 1996, Congress added Linguistic communication to the applicable appropriations bill which invited "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." This Linguistic communication was added to prevent the funding of research by the CDC that gun rights supporters considered politically motivated and intended to bring about further gun control legislation. In particular, the NRA and other gun rights proponents objected to work supported by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, then run by Mark L. Rosenberg, including research authored by Arthur Kellermann.
In October 2003, the National Academy of Sciences arrived at near identical conclusions in 2004. In September of that year, the Assault Weapons Ban expired due to a sunset provision. Efforts by gun control advocates to renew the ban failed, as did attempts to replace it after it became defunct.
The NRA opposed bans on handguns in Chicago, Washington D.C., and San Francisco while supporting the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 also known as the School Safety And Law Enforcement Improvement Act, which strengthened requirements for background checks for firearm purchases. The GOA took issue with a portion of the bill, which they termed the "Veterans' Disarmament Act."
Besides the GOA, other national gun rights groups carry on to take a stronger stance than the NRA. These groups include the Second Amendment Sisters, Second Amendment Foundation, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and the Pink Pistols. New groups have also arisen, such as the Students for Concealed Carry, which grew largely out of safety-issues resulting from the imposing of gun-free zones that were legislatively mandated amidst a response to widely publicized school shootings.
In 2001, in United States v. Emerson, the Fifth Circuit became the first federal appeals court to recognize an individual's right to own guns. In 2007, in Parker v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Circuit became the first federal appeals court to strike down a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds.
Smart guns only fire when in the hands of the owner, a feature gun control advocates say eliminates accidental firings by children, and the risk of hostile persons such as prisoners, criminal suspects, an opponent in a fight, or an enemy soldier grabbing the gun and using it against the owner. Gun rights advocates fear mandatory smart gun technology will make it more unmanageable to fire a gun when needed.
Smith & Wesson reached a settlement in 2000 with the administration of President Bill Clinton, which included a provision for the agency to develop a smart gun. A consumer boycott organized by the NRA and NSF nearly drove the agency out of business and forced it to drop its smart gun plans.