Written 200 years ago, the Constitution of the United States of America is the foundation this country is built upon. Despite the significance of such a document, or perhaps because of it, the Constitution remains the most discussed piece of writing in the U.S. with one specific amendment at the forefront of the discussion.
From the Constitution of the United States of America – The Right to Bear Arms: “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 is perhaps the most controversial amendment of our time, sparking both political and private debates. On one side, hard-hitting Republicans and Conservatives wholeheartedly pro-Second Amendment. On the other side, Democrats and Progressives passionately declaring the amendment to be outdated and dangerous.
And in the midst of it all, students and victims of gun violence demand to end the debates and take action. The problem is, those affected by gun violence protest based on their right to live in a gun-free area. Those who are pro-gun use the Second Amendment to justify their rights to own guns.
“A lot of this stems from the question of federalism and the size and scope of the federal government and what they are allowed to tell me I can and cannot do,” said Suzanne Chod, professor of political science.
The cross between strictly following the Second Amendment or the federalist idea of states’ authority pushes the Republican Party’s agenda. Meanwhile, the Democrats are taking an entirely different approach.
“Traditionally the liberal ideology is more about larger federal government intervention and having federal government policies,” said Chod. “Where again, as the Republicans are more for states’ rights, and also thinking about the Second Amendment (and) interpreting it in a different way.”
The interpretation of the Second Amendment is vital to the debate. When interpreted literally, the Second Amendment is not really about guns. It is about maintaining a militia, should a time come when citizens must rise up against a tyrannical federal government.
But the argument about one’s “right” to own guns has not been about maintaining a militia for a very long time, for voters or for politicians.
Stephen Caliendo, professor of political science, said as the Republican Party became the party representing rural interests, which is often a pro-gun culture, voter perspectives changed.
“In other words,” said Caliendo, “if I feel like I’m a Republican and I live in those areas and I hunt and I have guns in my home, I’m going to want to ask candidates the degree to which they’re willing to protect my right to have those guns.”
Add in the National Rifle Association and this is where the partisan divide starts to become more apparent.
Caliendo said the NRA overwhelmingly offers financial support to Republican candidates and politicians who come from rural areas. These areas, and the politicians and constituents from them, are overwhelmingly white citizens. Thus, the NRA’s support helps perpetuate the narrative that “it’s overwhelmingly white people with guns that are protective of their Second Amendment rights” and encourages the partisan divide.
But here’s where the partisan divide becomes a problem: when there are more mass shootings in a year than there are days.
On Sept. 1, CBS reported, “The number of mass shootings across the U.S. thus far in 2019 has outpaced the number of days this year.”
At the time, Gun Violence Archive reported that on the 244th day of the year, the U.S. had already seen 283 mass shootings. Out of that number, 21 of the shootings turned deadly. That number includes the two shootings in Texas on Aug. 31, the shooting in Dayton and the El Paso shooting.
The type of gun used in all those shootings? The AR-15 or the AK-47. Suddenly, we’re not talking about maintaining a militia. We’re talking about arming private citizens with military-grade weapons.
“We’ll say that everything that comes after that militia part (in the Second Amendment) can’t be taken seriously anymore,” said Caliendo, “We’re not talking about bayonets. We’re not talking about formal militias. We’re talking about people on the streets with handguns or assault weapons.”
Yet those who remain staunchly pro-gun, whether that be bayonets or assault weapons, turned the Second Amendment into a holy text. They declare that any sort of gun reform, that many on the Democratic side are attempting to push through, infringes upon the basis of America.
But amendments to amendments aren’t unheard of. In fact, without them, America wouldn’t be the country it is today: prohibition would still exist; people of color would still not be allowed to vote; suffrage wouldn’t be a thing; the voting age would still be 21.
“The Supreme Court can say, ‘we (can) write legislation that directly contradicts the Second Amendment,’” said Caliendo. “The Supreme Court can say they can uphold that legislation in the Second Amendment is no longer relevant. Another path would be to write a new amendment, a 28th Amendment. And we’ve done that. We had prohibition. The 18th Amendment and 21st Amendment repeal prohibition. You can write an amendment that specifically contradicts a previous amendment.”
The problem, of course, is that it’s difficult to amend the Constitution. Caliendo points out that although the Constitution has 27 Amendments, it has only been amended 17 times in 200 years. The Bill of Rights, those first 10 amendments, all happened at the same time rather than over the course of history like the other 17.
But for an amendment to actually take place, two-thirds of both houses of Congress would have to approve, or three-quarters of the states. And with so many rural states who support the Second Amendment, the latter is unlikely to happen.
That doesn’t stop gun control advocates, however. Instead, Caliendo said they target public policy decisions.
“That is, can you make laws that restrict gun ownership, gun use, gun sales, et cetera, that do not directly conflict with the Second Amendment?” said Caliendo. “And that second part, of course, gets (left) completely up to the courts, doesn’t it? That’s what the courts are supposed to do: does this language of the act … coexist with language of the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.”
It’s that language, that idea of following the U.S. Constitution, that has drawn the battle out in courts. Thus, as the Supreme Court regroups for the start of the third quarter, they have agreed to hear the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York. It is the first time in a decade that such hearings will be held.
Yet, no matter what the court decides, voters will be paying attention to the Democratic candidates, all of whom have spoken out against the Second Amendment. Beto O’Rourke drew headlines for his comments at the September Democratic debate.
He said, “‘Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.’” The audience erupted into cheers. And while many stand with O’Rourke on getting the military-grade weapons off the street, others are concerned about the legality of such a claim … as well as the practicality of it.
“I think the Beto is talking about a mandatory gun buyback program,” said Caliendo. “In other words … the government would buy your guns from you, but it’s not your choice to sell them. You must sell them because it would be illegal to own them.”
This program would be two-pronged. It would be illegal to own such items. If someone is caught with the firearms, they face some sort of legal consequences. Since it wasn’t illegal to own those specific guns before the law went into effect, the owner would be reimbursed for the cost of them once they were handed over.
Of course, while many fear O’Rourke would take any and all guns, Caliendo said that O’Rourke was specifically speaking about the AR-15 and AK-47.
Regardless of what O’Rourke or any other candidate says or the ruling of the Supreme Court, the debate surrounding the Second Amendment will not end anytime soon. Now, young voters are the ones pushing the gun reform agenda.
Within the past two years, movements and marches demanding gun reform haven’t been started by politicians trying to garner support, but students who fear they will face gun violence in their school. Most notably, the March for Our Lives event that took place in the nation’s capital, led by survivors of the Parkland school shooting.
The fact is, Caliendo said, a shooting like that can happen anywhere, even somewhere as safe as North Central or Naperville.
“It’d be foolish for anybody to say it could never happen in North Central College,” said Caliendo. “People who want greater gun control, I think will leverage the school shootings because they’re news-making and their dramatic, but the number of people who die in school shootings … is far outweighed by people who shot (are) in urban areas, for instance, and in street violence.”
Caliendo continued to say that the strategy of focusing on school shootings is a good strategy for gun reform activists to use.
“Children are vulnerable,” said Caliendo. “You’re supposed to be a safe learning environment, I don’t mean little children, (I mean) even college students. We’re here to learn. But the violence shouldn’t disrupt people in the streets either.”
Whether or not gun reform will actually happen, said Caliendo, is going to come down to timing and momentum.
“It comes down to a question of timing and speed,” Caliendo explained. “Imagine the trajectory of support for gun control increasing. That is, if people of (the millennial and younger) generation move into power.”
Caliendo references the trajectory of the gay rights movement as a comparison. He said that although the Supreme Court ruled in 2003 to essentially lay the foundation for gay marriage, the movement started way before that date.
When it comes to gun control advocates, instilling a type of pattern similar to that of the gay rights movement to increase speed and trajectory is important.
But, speed and trajectory aside, gun reform will eventually come down to young voters and where they place their support.
Here on North Central’s campus, though, it’s a firearm free zone, like the rest of Illinois.
“We’re a private institution,” Caliendo said. “We can make our own rules. So even if Illinois had concealed carry and allow people to sort of do whatever they want … we still don’t have to permit that on our campus. We get to make our own rules. That’s our choice.”
