The ‘Right’ to bear arms

The process of changing the US Constitution to regulate ownership of arms

BY RITAM MITRA

Enshrined in the Constitution of America are a number of fundamental principles of democracy and freedom. The Bill of Rights, the collective name given to the first ten amendments of the Constitution, features many values that most modern societies take for granted. No laws can abridge the freedom of speech of the people or the press. No one may be searched, nor his or her assets seized, in an unreasonable manner. There is a strict prohibition on excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishments. Why then, amongst these quintessentially democratic ideals, does the right to bear arms appear as the second amendment of the American Constitution?

In a recent study, the United States saw 11,127 people killed by firearms each year – a rate of 3.6/100,000.

Late last month in Colorado, the release of the much-anticipated final movie in the Batman trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises brought with it a much more real terror than any villain in a superhero movie could have achieved. During a midnight screening of Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster, a gunman set off tear gas grenades before opening fire on the audience with multiple firearms. He killed 12 people and injured 58, some severely. He did not discriminate between men, women or children.

The man, James Eagan Holmes, had no criminal record. In fact, until he shot the firearms - the 12-gauge Remington Model 870 shotgun, the Smith & Wesson M&P15 semi-automatic rifle, and the .40 S&W Glock Model 22 handgun which he used during the attacks, Holmes had not been convicted of any crimes because these firearms were all purchased legally.

Holmes had purchased nearly 7,000 rounds of ammunition in the 60 days before the shooting. Legally.

The United States has the highest rate of gun-related injuries in the world. It also, however, has the highest rate of gun ownership. And it is this fact which is, to many, more concerning. A government’s main responsibility is the well-being of its citizens - and the question on many lips isisn’t the US Government failing its citizens?

The answer, unfortunately, falls into a grey area over which morally-conscious US politicians will be tearing their hair out. And here’s a sad, but real reality check:

When something is enshrined in the Constitution, it is infinitely more difficult to change it – just as is the case with the Australian Constitution.

In the US, changing the Bill of Rights is not as simple as passing a vote in the Congress. First, both houses of Congress would have to propose a constitutional amendment, requiring a 2/3 majority in each house. The proposed amendment would be submitted to each of the states for ratification, where the legislatures of ¾ of the states must then ratify the amendment (sometimes, within a certain period of time) before it becomes part of the Constitution. There is another method where the legislatures of the states can apply to Congress for amendments – but this is hardly likely with respect to the current issue, and requires a similarly laborious process. It simply will not happen any time soon, and repeated polling has shown that American citizens don’t want any changes. It is difficult for us in Australia, where we are subject to perhaps some of the strictest firearms legislation in the world, to fathom the US position on guns. The country’s early history lends a small clue: the American Revolutionary War of the late 18th Century saw the country fight for, and declare independence from Great Britain, and so the link between guns and freedom was born. Indeed, in celebration of Independence Day, early celebrations saw the origination of the 13gun salute (now 21-gun, the 13-gun salute was a reference to the 13 newly-formed United States at the time).

There is no need to mention the number of devastating shooting incidents that have taken place in the United States over the years, not to mention the thousands of daily incidents that do not make the news because of their normality. In a recent study, the United States saw 11,127 people killed by firearms each year – a rate of 3.6/100,000. In comparison, just across the border in Canada, 165 gun-related deaths were recorded – or 0.484/100,000.

Australia saw just 65 deaths in this period, a rate of 0.292/100,000.

Far-right gun lobbying organisation, the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) has been, since 1871, promoting firearm ownership rights. The main argument seems to be, “guns don’t kill people, the people that fire the guns do”.

The logic behind this statement fails to make an appearance to me. Freedom is a concept that is inherently linked with peace and equality. Many American civilians seem to be misguided by their own Constitution. The right to bear arms is one based on a context of revolution and battle, and what would then of course be a legitimate reason to own a weapon. What place does it have, then, in the most powerful nation in the world in a time of peace?