The issue over whether or not it is constitutional for the government to restrict the ability to buy or keep guns has been argued for many years. Debates often flare up because of a tragedy in which someone goes on a rampage with guns and kills or injures multiple people. People who are against gun control claim that the Second Amendment gives them the right to own firearms; however, the Constitution only gives collective rights to possess guns rather than individual. The Second Amendment states, “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.” (US Const. amend. II). The “well regulated militia” clause clearly states that the amendment does not apply to every individual. With current laws, it is both easy and quick for anybody to get firearms for any reason, which is extremely dangerous. Laws that restrict the ability …show more content…
This would mean that the Second Amendment would only apply to the people in the militias, and that the right to own guns is a privilege, not a right (Dolan and Scariano 32). The right to own guns is therefore susceptible to regulations and would be the equivalent of a driver’s license (Dolan and Scariano 32). In 1939, the Supreme Court agreed with this view. In the court case U.S. v. Miller, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment did not protect Jack Miller and Frank Layton from prosecution for transporting a sawed-off shotgun from Arkansas to Oklahoma (Legal Action Project 79). In their decision, they found that there was no evidence that the shotgun was not affiliated with a well regulated militia and, therefore, not protected by the Second Amendment (Legal Action Project 79). Gun control is constitutional under the Second Amendment because it only requires a collective right of