“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.”
The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution ensures the right to keep and bear arms as an unalienable right. However, 233 years later, the context, meaning, and present-day application of this amendment poses a hot topic for debate. With 40,167 people dying of gun violence in the US in 2023 — an average of 118 deaths every day with 1,306 of these deaths being teens and 276 of them being children — the question of whether gun rights should be limited (and to what extent) continues to be raised. Addressing this controversy comes with a wide spectrum of opinions that vary between each political party, each state, and each person.
This tension was prevalent last year in New York as gun owners challenged the state’s new gun control law in the Supreme Court. In order to carry a concealed firearm in public, the legislation in question required citizens to obtain a permit that would only be granted if applicants provided a specific reason greater than “a general desire for self protection.” Gun owners claimed that this provision for acquiring a permit to carry a firearm limited the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. On June 23, 2022, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen ended in a 6-3 ruling and a major victory for gun-rights groups as the Supreme Court struck down the permit requirement, reaffirming the Second Amendment.
To counter this ruling and protect against gun violence, New York lawmakers enacted the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) on September 1, 2023. This law details numerous places where firearms are not permitted including public transportation, Times Square, educational institutes, zoos, libraries, and private property without consent. Additionally, permit laws were made more meticulous, requiring 16 hours of training, recertification every three years, and a social media background check.
Once again, many gun owners sued in response to the CCIA in question of the law’s constitutionality. On December 8, 2023, three judges sat at the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals and dished out a 261-page decision that allowed some of the regulations to carry on while prohibiting others. After this rehashing, the court ruled that firearms remained prohibited in “sensitive sites” where guns are deemed dangerous and that people may be denied permits if their background checks reveal they lack “good moral character.” However, the court denied the provision that carrying a gun on private property is a felony unless there is a sign indicating that guns are not authorized. Guns will also still be allowed in places of worship, as long as there are no signs, under the argument that “New York can’t tell houses of worship how they protect their people.” The court also struck down the need to disclose social media information when applying for a firearm permit, claiming that prying into social media accounts is a “free speech concern.”
Despite some provisions of the CCIA being overturned, most gun-control proponents viewed the case as a success. New York Governor Kathy Hochul, a key contributor of the CCIA, is content with the ruling, sharing with The Wall Street Journal that it “left ‘core tenets’ of the law in effect.” Additionally, Attorney General Lelita James affirmed in a statement that this ruling will keep citizens safe: “This commonsense law was enacted to keep guns out of dangerous hands and away from schools, hospitals, parks, public transportation, and other sensitive locations.” Some challengers to the law were also content with the ruling, but for different reasons: His Tabernacle Church of upstate New York, for example, was satisfied with the provisions on places of worship since “The court made it clear that houses of worship have a constitutionally protected freedom to decide for themselves whether to allow otherwise legally possessed firearms into their facilities,” says the church’s representative.
Most challengers to the law, however, were not satisfied with the ruling. Erich Platt of Gun Owners of America is frustrated and claims his organization may take the case to the Supreme Court. He states that “this was not a total victory, and we will continue the fight until this entire law is sent to the bowels of history where it belongs.” While gun-rights proponents believe that gun ownership is self defense and a constitutional right that should not be limited or infringed upon, gun-control advocates argue that regulations are necessary for national safety and that the language of the second amendment does not protect the individual right to possess guns — especially considering the time and context in which the amendment was written. Morgan T., Greeley junior, shared her own perspective on the court ruling and its implications, saying that she “believe[s] this law is a step further in mitigating gun control, but given the pushback on such laws, education on why they may be necessary is essential.”
Gun violence stands as the number-one cause of premature death in the United States, making it an issue that cannot be ignored. But is it possible to limit gun violence and ensure public safety while also protecting the etched writing of the Constitution? The debate is far from over. While it is difficult to predict how legislation will change in the future, we can hope for a safer tomorrow.
