The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights identifies freedoms that may not be subject to government control. It’s a grab bag: the only thing uniting them is that they are freedoms for each citizen, whether individually or joined with others. A broad title for it could be citizens’ rights.
It’s notable that gun ownership is not included there.
The focus shifts in the Second Amendment. Its accurate title should be national defense. When the United States had no standing army, “A well regulated Militia [was] necessary to the security of a free State.” It’s in this context, and in that context alone, that “the right of the people [collectively, under higher command] to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
No matter how loudly the NRA and others demand it, and how many times even the Supreme Court has said so, making this amendment a guarantee for having guns for self -defense is clearly not the intent. “Originalists” worthy of that term should agree, even if they do so grudgingly.
The unfettered possession of firearms by individuals is, therefore, not a sacrosanct constitutional right. Governments at all levels should, by rights, have complete freedom to regulate the ownership and use of guns as needed.
And the need is great! Our current epidemic of gun violence is downright horrendous. Much stricter controls are imperative, obviously.
Government leaders, get a backbone. Do it. Now!
Fred Reklau
Oak Park