The following discussion is from the US Gov/Info section on the internet site - About.
I have edited it in some places.

Gun Control Laws: What Gives Congress the Right?

Why aren't federal gun control laws unconstitutional?

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, simply says, "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."

Given the meaning of the words "shall not be infringed", why have those who advocate for an individual's right to bear arms primarily limited their battle to the halls of Congress? Why haven't gun laws more often been challenged as unconstitutional under the  Second Amendment?

Because the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects the rights of the well regulated militias of the states, not individual citizens, to keep and bear arms.

And, when it comes to regulating the militias of the states, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives that authority to -- The United States Congress:

to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." -- Article I, Section 8, U.S. Constitution

While advocates on both sides of the gun control debate often cite dozens of cases, the Supreme Court's definitive ruling on the 2nd Amendment comes from a single key 1939 case -- United States v. Miller

Two guys with a too short shotgun

When Jack Miller and Frank Layton were caught driving from Claremore, Oklahoma to Siloam Springs, Arkansas carrying a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, they were charged with and indicted of violation of Section 11 of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

On appeal, the Arkansas Western District Court found that section 11 of the Firearms Act of 1934 violated the Second Amendment and quashed the indictment. 

The U.S. Justice Department appealed the Arkansas Court's action to the U.S. Supreme Court where a landmark decision on gun control laws was just waiting to be made.

The Supreme Court Finds Otherwise

On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Arkansas Court ruling and in deciding the case of United States vs. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), clearly established the right and authority of the U.S. Congress to enact laws controlling receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms. 

While the Court's 1939 decision specifically upheld a federal law requiring registration of sawed-off shotguns, it also issued a legal definition of the scope of the Second Amendment as it applies to the constitutionally conceived militia that still stands today.

In essence, the Supreme Court ruled that a "well regulated militia" did not require sawed-off shotguns to properly carry out its constitutionally defined duty.

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.  Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." -- U.S. v. Miller (1939)

The statement above establishes the government's right to limit what types of firearms the public can legally "keep and bear."

For a federal gun control law to be successfully challenged as violating the Second Amendment, it would have to be proven that the law adversely affects the states' ability to raise and equip a militia.

The "Militia"
In the Miller case, the Court also takes the opportunity to define the "militia" considered by the Founding Fathers in creating the Second Amendment.

"The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." -- U.S. v. Miller (1939)

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States,

and the writings of approved commentators.  These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." -- U.S. v. Miller (1939)

"'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.'  And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.'" -- U.S. v. Miller (1939)

No Effect On the States

No matter how the Second Amendment is interpreted, it does not prevent states or local governments from enacting and enforcing their own gun control laws.

So, What Good is the 2nd Amendment

If the Supreme Court's opinion in U.S. v. Miller limits the Second Amendment's scope and authority to laws affecting the states' ability to raise and equip militias, what good does the 2nd Amendment do for the individual firearms owner?

First, what are some federal gun control laws that would not affect the states' ability to maintain public militias and thus, could not likely be challenged under the Second Amendment.

• Registration of all firearms
• Licensing of all firearm owners
• Prohibiting private ownership of certain types of firearms
• Requiring "trigger lock" devices
• Requiring gun buyer background checks at gun shows
• Enhanced penalties for gun-related crimes

Requirements for trigger locks, background checks at gun shows, and increased penalties are all part of H.R. 1501 - The Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999, now being considered by a joint conference committee of Congress.

Blanket registration of firearms and licensing of owners are currently required by Canadian gun control laws. 

Now, what are some federal gun control laws that would affect he states' ability to maintain public militias and thus, could be challenged under the Second Amendment:

• Prohibiting private ownership of firearms
• Requiring the mandatory surrender of all privately held firearms

There are currently no such laws being considered in Congress, and as long as the Second Amendment remains intact, there likely won't be. This is the good the Second Amendment does for the individual firearms owner.

Return to Second Amendment and Gun Violence Main Page  

Return to Rick Hubbard on the Issues  

Return to Home Page