It is essential to tighten standards utilized to regulate the purchases of firearms in the United States.  The United States has seen a number of consequences when firearms are obtained by the wrong people.  However, this does not undermine the right to bear arms, but points to the stricter standards that need to be implemented.  In the United States, regulating the purchases of firearms is an important step in improving the safety of citizens.

The Constitutional Right to Bear Arms

In the conversation of purchasing firearms, the topic of that of keeping and bearing arms is normally present.  The debates have continued to rage on on these points, resulting in this issue accounting for more disagreement and less understanding, according to Cottrol, than any other current issue of the United States Constitution (p. 286).  This is a popular point of debate upon which gun control is found, in the right to keep and bear arms as seen in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights that protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms (Constitution of the United States).  This is an individual right that is inherent in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  This must be noticed if we are to address the right of an individual to keep and bear arms as a citizen of the United States.

Critics

Critics who oppose the right to bear arms point to the point of the militia in the Second Amendment.  Others do not hold that it is an individual right to keep and bear arms.  While these counterarguments are many, they fail to recognize the basic right that is given in the Second Amendment.  Such oversights greatly undermine the current positions, if we are to move past this basic point to approach the regulation of firearms.

Supreme Court

In addressing such counterarguments, it is important to give the Supreme Court’s rulings on such advances.  The Court has upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms, as seen in the Emerson decision.  The Constitutional right to keep and bear arms was made clearly relevant by the Court in this decision (Uviller p. 246-247).

In the Emerson decision, the denial of the “militia” reference was made clear.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated:

There are numerous instances of the phrase “bear arms” being used to describe a civilian’s carrying of arms.  Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the “people” “to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state,” or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage “bear arms” was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service.

Spitzer

This important determination clearly grounds in the right for individuals to keep and bear arms, which is not to be confused with any attempts to confine it to a militia-based interpretation, made by many critics who battle the right to keep and bear arms.

Regulating Firearms

The Supreme Court has also clarified another matter pertaining to firearms.  The Amendment does not mean that one has the absolute right, meaning any person may have this unrestricted right.  In 2008, Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the right to bear arms is in fact not unlimited, and it is subject to reasonable prohibitions and regulations that have been supported in various rulings (Volokh).