Bullet Holes in Law? New Firearm Legislation and Challenges Against It

The issue of gun control has become a forefront issue as of recent years with rising spikes of mass shootings in the U.S. From AR-15s to hand guns, each side of the aisle fights for their view of the common good. Source for image: The BBC

A new law has taken the courts of Illinois by storm since being signed into law by Illinois’ Governor J.B. Pritzker regarding a ban on certain firearms and magazine attachments. The legislation is considered one of the farthest reaching pieces of law working to restrict the accessibility of “certain high-powered guns and high-capacity magazines…” Now, conservative organizations, attorneys, and firearm dealers, move to challenge the law with backing of a new precedent established in a Supreme Court case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which was decided just last year. The problem persists with the new precedent still being tested in its meaning, with each side arguing for different interpretations, and, by extension, the constitutionality of the law. 

Already, both federal and state suits have been made against the Illinois legislation signed in by Governor Pritzker, argued through New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, that its precedent allows for the open carrying of firearms (The court found in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, that United States citizens have a broad right to arm themselves in both private and public spaces). To add to the mix, Illinois is made up of many smaller conservative counties (particularly outside the general region of Chicago), where local officials and sheriffs have made claims to not prioritize infractions of this law, nor did they plan to arrest people found in violation. However, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen was only one of a few recent cases on the second amendment within the past decade. Prior to this case was the case of McDonald v Chicago. McDonald followed Heller v District of Columbia, which lifted many gun restriction bans on federal territories, from which McDonald moved to establish this across all states. The ruling in McDonald would apply the same ruling from Heller to the states, a concept known as selective incorporation (which was backed by the 14th amendment’s ability for the Court to apply the Bill of Rights to state governments). All three cases, built upon one another over the years, tend to swing towards providing more procedural liberties in favor of the people, that is, limiting how governments can act, by way of attacking gun restriction laws. However, debate continues in court with those in favor of the restrictions lying on the side of substantive due process (a process concerned with asking if what the government is doing is justified by some purpose), for the sake of protection and safety in communities. 

To review the constitutionality of claims for gun restrictions or total bans of particular types of firearms, one may look beyond the court cases and turn instead to the source: the Constitution. Amendment Two of the Constitution follows as written: “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.” To come to a general understanding, one in which a bi-partisan compromise may be reached with use of our faculties of reason, we look to the phrasing of the amendment itself. When interpreting the Constitution, one form of doing so is through grammar and sentence structure to interpret its meaning. Found within the amendment is both a normative and positive statement – something seen across multiple amendments and in large, the Constitution. It is unreasonable to assume the Founders could anticipate every partisan contention with the Constitution, so they wrote in general language implying their intent. Those who interpret the amendment to be a normative statement argue that it provides a suggestion towards the application of the amendment as a whole. If it were changed, it would not change the second statement. The second half, beginning with “the right of the people…” is a positive statement – something to be grounded or stand as a factual account of something. For example, “Poptarts, being delicious and wonderful, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” is one example to demonstrate a change in the writing, but not its meaning (for an explanation on why the strange construction of the 2nd amendment somehow holds grammatically correct, see this article). However strange, it displays a disconnect between the two statements; together, they are not directly connected or tied to one another in understanding their meaning. Thus, in following this understanding, lawmakers must be careful to protect the positive statement within the amendment, and not allow themselves to be confused by its earlier half. This positive statement stands as an argument against a total abolishment of the right itself, and may fight against national bans or restrictions, but is unclear as to what degree or what type of restrictions can be made. 

Some instead suggest comparing the U.S. to other nations. Though, as one writer, Leah Libresco writes, this may not be an entirely accurate or successful point towards the support of blanket gun control restrictions. Following the extent of decline in gun violence in both Australia and Britain, both had ambiguous effects (possibly because mass shootings were rarer already in those countries, particularly in Australia). Disagreement between the two parties will continue, though beyond restrictions of attachments or firearms themselves there may remain areas where the two sides can come to an agreement: Policies pertaining to mental health or education (screenings, an increase in education, being on higher alert to signs of mental illnesses that suggest violence or suicidal thoughts, etc). Currently, with the proposed legislation, there is little that would go to give aid to those with suicidal thoughts who are also gun owners. It remains significant enough that suicides by use of firearms makes up two thirds of deaths by gun violence nationally per year (though it is true if one is involuntarily admitted into a mental institution, they lose the right to purchase a firearm until appealed). Changing course to these types of legislation will likely decrease mass shootings and help those with thoughts of suicide, if not stop them before they begin entirely.