A Rights Theory Analysis of the Second Amendment By. Najwa Sharpe
-
Upload
najwa-sharpe -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of A Rights Theory Analysis of the Second Amendment By. Najwa Sharpe
7/22/2019 A Rights Theory Analysis of the Second Amendment By. Najwa Sharpe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-rights-theory-analysis-of-the-second-amendment-by-najwa-sharpe 1/22
A Rights Theory Analysis of the Second Amendment
4/29/2013
7/22/2019 A Rights Theory Analysis of the Second Amendment By. Najwa Sharpe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-rights-theory-analysis-of-the-second-amendment-by-najwa-sharpe 2/22
1
THE BACKDROP
On December 14th, 2012 America lost twenty first graders in a mass shooting in
Newtown, Connecticut. That tragedy and a long list of others forced America to assess the gun
culture in our country. At the center of our gun culture is the Second Amendment right to bear
arms. This paper will look at how recent firearm related deaths have shaped the current gun
rights debate. The primary types of gun violence explored in this paper are mass shootings and
urban gun violence.
The FBI describes a mass shooting as any shooting where four or more people are killed.
Since 2006 approximately 900 people have died in over 174 mass shootings. Of those mass
shootings, four have struck a particular never in our national discourse.
Virginia Tech
On April 16th, 2007 Seung Hui Cho killed 33 people on the campus of Virginia Tech.
Cho’s rampage started in a dormitory, and ended two hours later in the school’s engineering
building. Cho used a 9MM semiautomatic handgun, and a .22 caliber pistol. Cho purchased the
pistol online and purchased the handgun in person at a Virginia gun shop. Only the in-store gun
purchase required Cho to submit to a background check. The background check did not reveal
Cho’s prior mental disorders.
Tucson
On January 8th 2011 Jared Loughner went to a constituent meet-and-greet for
Representative Gabrielle Giffords. Loughner shot 20 people with a Glock 19 semiautomatic
handgun. Six of Loughner ’s victims succumbed to their injuries. Representative Giffords
7/22/2019 A Rights Theory Analysis of the Second Amendment By. Najwa Sharpe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-rights-theory-analysis-of-the-second-amendment-by-najwa-sharpe 3/22
2
survived but was gravely injured. Loughner purchased the guns used in the Tucson rampage in
Arizona after passing a background check. After his arrest psychiatrists diagnosed Loughner
with schizophrenia. There are no records that suggest doctors diagnosed Loughner with any
mental disorders before the murders.
Aurora
On July 23, 2012 James Holmes walked into an Aurora Colorado movie theater and
opened fire on unsuspecting patrons. Clothed in a bullet proof vest and leggings, Holmes used a
semiautomatic military style assault weapon with a 100-round magazine, a 12-gauge shotgun
and a .40 caliber semiautomatic pistol. Holmes killed 12 people and wounded 58 others before
police arrested him. Holmes purchased the weapons online and in-store. He had no criminal
record at the time of the in-store background check. Holmes, a college student, sent a notebook
of illustrations to his university’s counseling office before the murders. The illustrations were
strikingly similar to the shooting.
Newtown
On December 14th, 2012 Adam Lanza murdered his mother. He then drove to Sandy
Hook Elementary where he killed 26 people. Lanza killed 20 children and six educators before
killing himself. Lanza entered the school with a .223 caliber XM15 rifle with a 30-round
magazine, a 10MM handgun, a 9MM handgun, a shotgun with two 70-round magazines, and six
additional 30-round magazines. All of the weapons used in the shooting were leaglly purchased
by Lanza’s mother. Lanza’s mental health history included Asberger’s and Sensory Integration
Disorder. Neither disorder has been linked to violence.
7/22/2019 A Rights Theory Analysis of the Second Amendment By. Najwa Sharpe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-rights-theory-analysis-of-the-second-amendment-by-najwa-sharpe 4/22
3
Urban Gun Violence
While mass shootings rightfully capture the public’s attention, an equally tragic situation
is unfolding every day on our nation’s streets. The epicenter of the urban gun violence epidemic
is Chicago. Although Chicago has only a third of New York City’s population, in 2012 it far
exceeded New York City’s number of firearm related homicides. Authorities blame gangs for the
cities 500 homicides. Despite that, it was not until February of 2013 when the gun violence in
Chicago struck a nerve with the nation. Hadiya Pendleton, a majorette who performed at
President Obama’s 2013 inauguration, was gunned down on her way home from school.
Pendleton’s f amily described her as kind and filled with promise. Not all victims of urban gun
violence fit that description. Two months after Pendleton’s murder, a 15 year old suspected gang
member was gunned down blocks from President Obama’s Chicago home with much less media
coverage. Victims with a criminal history may be harder to embrace. But does that make their
lives any less valuable?
The Response
The nation is locked in a heated debate about how best to respond to these tragedies. The
response falls into two camps — those that believe in restricting the right to bear arms, and those
that do not. President Barack Obama and some in his party support the idea of curbing the right
to bear arms in order to reduce gun violence. In January 2013 President Obama released his plan.
Here are the highlights:
Requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, including
those by private sellers that currently are exempt.
Reinstating and strengthening the ban on assault weapons that was
in place from 1994 to 2004.
Limiting ammunition magazines to 10-rounds
7/22/2019 A Rights Theory Analysis of the Second Amendment By. Najwa Sharpe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-rights-theory-analysis-of-the-second-amendment-by-najwa-sharpe 5/22
4
Providing $30 million in grants to states to help schools develop
emergency response plans.
Providing financing to expand mental health programs for young
people.
Releasing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal
law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law
enforcement authorities.
Proposing a rule to give law enforcement authorities the ability to
run a full background check on an individual before returning a
seized gun.
Increasing criminal penalties for "straw purchasers," people who
pass the required background check to buy a gun on behalf of
someone else.
Acting on a $4 billion administration proposal to help keep 15,000
police officers on the street.
Thus far the assault weapons ban, and the enhanced background check proposals have garnered
the most attention.
Gun rights advocates believe that many of the President’s proposals will do little to
prevent mass shootings and urban gun violence. Republican congressional leaders argue that gun
control should not infringe upon the rights of law-abiding firearm owners. Law-abiding firearm
owners, Republicans argue, primarily use guns for self-defense and recreation. In the 1980s
Republicans embraced the interpretation that the Second Amendment conferred, “an individual
right [to] the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of
himself, his family, and his freedoms.” The National Rifle Association (NRA), a leading gun
rights group, led the charge for gun rights following the mass shootings of 2012. “The only way
to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun,” said NRA Executive Vice President
Wayne LaPierre. The NRA took that idea a step further in its April 2013 report on school safety.
In that report the NRA recommends teachers arm themselves in the classroom. The NRA would
also like to see the government focus on the prosecution of violent criminals, and correcting
7/22/2019 A Rights Theory Analysis of the Second Amendment By. Najwa Sharpe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-rights-theory-analysis-of-the-second-amendment-by-najwa-sharpe 6/22
5
flaws in the nation’s mental health system. Another emerging concern for gun rights advocates is
privacy. The American Civil Liberties Union argued that the creation of a national background
check system could allow the government to compile a national database of gun owners. They
fear that the database will be used for limitless surveillance rather than prevention of gun
violence.
America’s demand for answers has opened the door for a critical look at the right to bear
arms. With this background in mind this paper will first describe what a right is, the structure of
rights, and leading rights theories. Second this paper will describe the right to bear arms and how
it has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. Third this paper will describe existing
positive law limits, and potential limits to the right to bear arms. Lastly this paper will offer
concluding thoughts on how the limits discussed could shape the gun rights debate.
RIGHTS ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
A right is defined as something that is due to a person by just claim, legal guarantee, or
moral principle. That definition includes several types of rights. Rights that are described by a
legal guarantee are usually codified in positive law instruments like a constitution, or statute.
Rights that are based on moral reasoning, or morals based social practices are derived from
natural law. The origin of a right is often used to justify the legitimacy of that right. Rights
typically fit into the following formula. All rights have a subject, the right-holder. They all also
have an object, the right. Rights that create a duty in another person will have a respondent, the
duty-bearer, and a justification for the right.
Rights also have a basic internal structure that tells us how a right will be asserted. One
commonly discussed structure of rights is the hohfeldian incidents. Hofeldian incidents have four
7/22/2019 A Rights Theory Analysis of the Second Amendment By. Najwa Sharpe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-rights-theory-analysis-of-the-second-amendment-by-najwa-sharpe 7/22
6
components: a privilege, claim, power, and immunity. Privileges and claims are considered
primary rules. Powers and immunities are considered secondary rules, and can be used to alter or
lock-in a primary rule. A right may include one or more of these components. When a right is
composed of multiple components it is called a molecular right. Many believe that all rights can
fit into the hohfeldian framework.
A privilege is the right to engage in certain activity. A person has the freedom to engage
in that activity because there is no duty not to engage in that activity. For example when a person
is asked to reveal discussions with their attorney they can assert their attorney-client privilege.
The attorney-client privilege removes the person’s duty to reveal the discussions. Privileges are
either single, or paired. A single privilege exempts a right holder from some general duty. On the
other hand, a paired privilege gives the right holder discretion to determine whether or not to
perform some action.
A claim confers a right to have someone do something (or not do something) and a
correlative duty in another person (or people) to comply. Claims can have three different
functions. Claims can: give the right-holder protection, compel a duty-bearer to perform a
specific action, or entitle the right holder to provisions to meet a need. For example an employee
has a claim right against their employer to wages for hours worked. Claim rights can be positive,
requiring the duty-bearer to act in a certain way. A claim right can also be negative, requiring a
duty-bearer to refrain from acting in a certain way. The right of a child not to be abused is an
example of how a negative claim right is used for a protective function.
A power gives the right-holder the ability to create, waive, or annul a privilege, or claim.
A right-holder may have the power to change her, or another person’s privileges or claims.
7/22/2019 A Rights Theory Analysis of the Second Amendment By. Najwa Sharpe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-rights-theory-analysis-of-the-second-amendment-by-najwa-sharpe 8/22
7
Powers are either single or paired. For example the Governor of Mississippi used discretion in
granting a pardon which changed the prisoner’s normative situation.
Immunity represents an absence of power in a party to alter a privilege or claim.
Immunity confers upon the right-holder protection from an unsanctioned use of power. For
example the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging the people’s privilege
of free speech. That means “the people” are immune from congressional attempts to alter that
privilege.
There are theories that clarify what a right is and what they do for their holders. The two
main theories of rights are the will theory and the interest theory. Will theorists believe that a
right gives its holder control over another person’s duty to act toward the right-holder. A right-
holder may choose to require the duty-bearer to do something, or refrain from doing something
to fulfill her obligation. Under the will theory a right must include power. This definition of right
led to the exclusion of many inalienable rights such as the right not to be enslaved. It also
excludes the rights of people who are unable to exercise control. Under will theory a child would
not be able to assert the right not to be abused because children cannot independently assert
control over adults.
Interest theorists assert that rights function to further the right-holder’s interests. When a
claim right is involved the duty bearer’s obligation helps further the right-holder’s interest. Any
power or immunity must also further the right-holder’s interest. Unlike the will theory, interest
theorists embrace inalienable rights. For example the right to not be enslaved furthers the right-
holder’s interest in freedom. Interest theory does have its shortcomings. Interest theory does not
recognize rights that benefit someone other than the right-holder. Imagine that Grandma pays
7/22/2019 A Rights Theory Analysis of the Second Amendment By. Najwa Sharpe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-rights-theory-analysis-of-the-second-amendment-by-najwa-sharpe 9/22
8
Smith $35,000 for a BMW for her granddaughter. Although the payment confers a right to claim
the car, interest theorists would not say Grandma has a right because the benefit of the car goes
to her granddaughter.
THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides:
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 amendment includes two clauses. The prefactory clause, “A well regulated Militia being
necessary to the security of a free State,” is a preamble which states the purpose of the
amendment. The operative clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed,” tells how the amendment operates. On its face the amendment seems to give
members of a state’s militia the right to bear arms to defend the state. This interpretation is the
collective right interpretation. In U.S. v. Miller the Supreme Court held that Congress could
regulate interstate firearm transmissions. In Miller the defendant was accused of transporting an
unregistered sawed-off shotgun through interstate commerce in violation of the National
Firearms Act. The Court reasoned unless the defendant could show that the sawed-off shotgun
had, “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”
that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a right to bear that type of arm. Some have taken
the Court’s invocation of the prefactory clause to mean that the amendment only guarantees the
right to bear arms while in service to a militia. In the 1980s a different theory about the meaning
of the Second Amendment emerged. Scholar’s argued the amendment guaranteed an individual
7/22/2019 A Rights Theory Analysis of the Second Amendment By. Najwa Sharpe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-rights-theory-analysis-of-the-second-amendment-by-najwa-sharpe 10/22
9
the right to bear arms. This, the individual right interpretation, is premised on the words, “the
right of the people to keep and bear arms.” In 2008 the Supreme Court weighed in on the
individual right interpretation in District of Columbia v. Heller. In Heller the Court held the
Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms which is unconnected to
service in a state militia. In Heller the Court struck down a Washington D.C. law that banned
handgun possession in the District. The defendant, intended to use the handgun for self-defense
inside of his home. The majority of the Court concluded that the prefactory clause did not limit
or expand the scope of the operative clause. The Heller Court pointed out a limitation to this
right. The court limited the individual’s right to bear arms to use for traditional lawful purposes.
The applicability of the right to bear arms is also shifting. In 2010 the Supreme Court unsettled a
commonly held belief that the Second Amendment only applied to the federal government. In
McDonald v. City of Chicago the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process
Clause made the Second Amendment applicable to the States. In McDonald the Court struck
down a Chicago handgun ban similar to that in Heller.
The Molecular Structure of the Right to Bear Arms
The right to bear arms fits into the hohfeldian incidents framework. The Second
Amendment is a molecular right conferring both primary and secondary level rights. On the
primary level the Second Amendment confers a privilege to “the people” to engage in the act of
keeping and bearing arms. The Second Amendment also gives its right-holders a claim right.
“The people” have a negative claim that their right to bear arms not be infringed. Although the
amendment does not expressly name the duty bearer, McDonald suggests that both federal and
state governments owe the duty created by the Second Amendment. On the secondary level the
people also have immunity. All levels of government have power to enact laws. Without a
7/22/2019 A Rights Theory Analysis of the Second Amendment By. Najwa Sharpe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-rights-theory-analysis-of-the-second-amendment-by-najwa-sharpe 11/22
10
restriction, the government could use its power to deny a person’s Second Amendment right. The
immunity bars government from passing laws that would infringe upon the right to bear arms.
Theoretical Acknowledgement of Right to Bear Arms
Interest theory would recognize the right conferred in the Second Amendment. The right
to keep and bear arms furthers the interest of the right holder in one of two ways. If you ascribe
to the collective right interpretation, the Second Amendment furthers the right-holders interest in
protecting their state. If you believe the Constitution confers an individual right, then the right-
holder’s interest in protecting his state, or any personal liberties is furthered by the right
conferred in the Second Amendment.
A will theorist might not recognize the right to bear arms because it does not expressly
give the right-holder power over the duty-bearer. Though the government has a duty not to
infringe the right to bear arms, the government retains whatever power exists to create, or revise
a law that would affect the right to bear arms. The amendment does not expressly allow the right-
holder to waive the right to bear-arms. Nor does it expressly allow the right-holder to transfer
their right to bear-arms to someone else. One could argue that the right to bear arms can be
waived. By submitting to legal restrictions, such as an assault weapons ban, a right-holder is
waiving some of her right. In that sense the right-holder is altering the duty- bearer’s obligation.
LIMITS ON THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
Although the right to bear arms confers immunity that does not mean the right is
unlimited. Various background theories allow rights to be limited in certain circumstances. A
utilitarian might limit a right if doing so would be more beneficially to the majority. A natural
7/22/2019 A Rights Theory Analysis of the Second Amendment By. Najwa Sharpe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-rights-theory-analysis-of-the-second-amendment-by-najwa-sharpe 12/22
11
law theorist might limit a widely held right if the exercise of that right would infringe upon a
fundamental right of an individual.
Experience & the Resulting Positive Law Limits
Opponents of the proposed assault weapons ban have argued such a ban would be an
infringement on the right to bear arms. While it is true that a ban would limit the right to bear
arms, it’s an exaggeration to say that such a limitation is an unconstitutional infringement. The
text of the amendment provides no guarantees as to which arms people may bear. In the centuries
since the adoption of the Second Amendment, every level of government has passed laws that
limit the right to bear arms. Experience is a common source of inspiration for the positive law
limitations. When gun violence claims the life of a public figure, runs rampant in a particular
community, or touches a defenseless segment of society lawmakers have made it harder to obtain
firearms. This reactionary approach to rights has received support from legal scholars like Alan
Dershowitz. According to Dershowitz, “Reasonable people will always disagree on the perfect
good, but there will be less disagreement about the evils that experience has taught us to
prevent.”
At the federal level, Congress has enacted several laws that limit the right to bear arms. In
1990 Congress enacted the Gun Free School Zone Act with the likely aim of protecting children
from gun violence. 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(2)(A) made it unlawful to possess a firearm in a school
zone. In U.S. v. Lopez the Supreme Court held that the act unconstitutionally overstepped
Congress’ commerce clause powers. Neither the defendant nor the Court brought up Second
Amendment infringement. Congress subsequently amended the law so that it only applied to
guns transmitted through interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C§ 922(g)(4) made it unlawful for
anyone who had been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental
7/22/2019 A Rights Theory Analysis of the Second Amendment By. Najwa Sharpe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-rights-theory-analysis-of-the-second-amendment-by-najwa-sharpe 13/22
12
institution to possess a firearm. 18 U.S.C § 922(g)(3) made it unlawful for a person who uses
illegal controlled substances to possess a firearm. The likely aim of both of these laws is to keep
guns away from people who lack the competence to operate a firearm safely. 18 U.S.C. § 922
(o)(1) made it unlawful for a person to possess a machinegun. In 2012 the Ninth Circuit held that
the machinegun ban did not infringe the defendant’s Second Amendment rights. The court cited
the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller in which the Court stated, the protections of the Second
Amendment do not extend to “weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for
lawful purposes.” The Court noted that machineguns could kill dozens of people within
minutes, and the fact that machineguns were rare in the marketplace due to the ban. This
machinegun case is instructive of how courts might hold on the constitutionality of an assault
weapons ban because of the similar lethality of the firearms.
The Egoism of an Irrelevant Individual Right
Legal philosopher, Ronald Dworkin described rights as trumps. A right trumps the will of
the community when the o bjective protected by the right is more important than the community’s
objective. In his thesis Rights as Trumps, Dworkin explained why individual rights are necessary
in a democracy like ours. “We need rights, as a distinct element in political theory, only when
some decision that injures some people nevertheless finds prima-facie support in the claim that it
will make the community as a whole better off on some plausible account of where the
community’s general welfare lies.”
Typically individual rights help establish equality amongst a diverse community.
Individual rights typically protect fundamental rights. The salience of fundamental rights
explains why they are worth subordinating the will of the majority. The freedom to express ones
opinions is widely seen as a fundamental individual right. Free expression is intrinsic to our
7/22/2019 A Rights Theory Analysis of the Second Amendment By. Najwa Sharpe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-rights-theory-analysis-of-the-second-amendment-by-najwa-sharpe 14/22
13
fulfillment as communicative beings and as a consequence advances the dissemination of truth in
the community. The Court, in Heller, held that the right to bear arms is an individual right.
In April 2013 the U.S. Senate voted on the bipartisan Manchin-Toomey Amendment, a
proposal that would strengthen existing background checks for firearm purchases. Polls showed
90% of Americans supported the proposal as a pragmatic response to the mass murders of 2012.
The polls show the public’s willingness to limit their legal right to bear arms, perhaps based on a
moral sense of duty. Despite broad public support the Senate failed to pass the measure. Many
believe the Senators, fearing midterm election challenges, caved to the will of an outnumbered
well-funded gun lobby.
This turn of events pits rights of the collective against individual rights. In Rights as
Trumps, Dworkin cautioned us not to pay insufficient attention to an outweighed minority, but
also urged that we not go beyond what is required by equality and justice to protect the rights of
a few. I believe that the Senators’ disregard of the will of their constituents does the latter.
Unlike the rights of homosexuals in Rights as Trumps, the primary justification for gun control
does not rely on moralistic prejudices. The right to bear arms would be limited in order to
prevent a wrong that the community collectively abhors.
Scholars have referred to this type of rights conflict as the egoism of individual rights.
When people think of individual rights they think of autonomy. I agree in most cases that human
beings should not be denied the right to have their rational capacity reflect their behavior.
Usually when someone infringes a right to think and act accordingly they destroy the right-
holder’s dignity. Proposed limitations on the right to bear arms, such as the assault weapons ban,
7/22/2019 A Rights Theory Analysis of the Second Amendment By. Najwa Sharpe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-rights-theory-analysis-of-the-second-amendment-by-najwa-sharpe 15/22
14
removes one choice among many but does not stop the right-holder form selecting another
firearm. The right-holder would maintain their dignity in that sense.
The right to bear arms is also different from the individual rights examples presented, in
the sense that it creates irrevocable negative externalities that the community must internalize.
When a person possesses a firearm they do so with the knowledge that the firearm exacts lethal
force. When an individual decides to use a firearm to kill another person they are externalizing
the effects of their decision to exercise their right. The community’s medical, police, and judicial
resources are called upon in the aftermath of the right-holder’s decision. The broader community
internalizes these costs. The same is true when a law-abiding citizen’s gun is stolen and then
used to commit crimes against the law abiding citizen or others.
Opponents of gun control argue that the right to bear arms is fundamental to protection
against tyranny of the majority. While the historical origins of this argument are accurate, the
current state of affairs in America suggests this argument is losing relevance. It is true that the
United States secured its freedom by the power of the gun. It is also true that colonial Americans
had very few express rights, and that their basic liberties were often trampled. Over two centuries
later the United States has a highly developed catalogue of enumerated liberties in the Bill of
Rights. It even has a constitutional amendment that recognizes unenumerated rights. Citizens of
the United States enjoy the benefit of laws protecting their civil rights. The right to free speech,
the right to equal treatment, the right to assembly, the right to vote, and the right to a fair wage
all work together to prevent the type of tyranny colonial Americans experienced. The idea that
anyone in 21st century America would use a gun to assassinate political leaders by whom they
feel oppressed is unthinkable. Our framer’s most cited reason for the right to bear arms has long
since disappeared. Maybe the time has come for the Second Amendment, in its current form, to
7/22/2019 A Rights Theory Analysis of the Second Amendment By. Najwa Sharpe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-rights-theory-analysis-of-the-second-amendment-by-najwa-sharpe 16/22
15
disappear. The Second Amendment is a right created by positive law. Positive law can be given,
and it can be taken away.
A Co un te rv ai li ng Ri ght of Li fe
In natural law moral principles serve as a guide to humanity. A central principle to those
teachings is the importance of a life. Natural law asserts that all human beings have a right not to
be killed. This right creates a duty in anyone that would visit death upon the right-holder. Alan
Gewirth, a moral philosopher, described the right to life as an absolute right. Gewirth described
this absolute right through a conflict of rights example in which terrorists tell a man if he does
not torture and kill his mother that they will detonate a nuclear explosion in a city. Gewirth
ultimately concludes that both the mother, and the city people have an absolute right to life. He
also concluded that because the terrorists’ actions intervened, the man would not be morally
culpable if he refused to kill his mother. Gewirth’s exercise fleshed out an important point about
conflicting rights. Where competing rights are of equal importance, for example the lives of the
mother and the lives of the city people, you cannot justify diminishing one right in favor of
another. Gewirth went on to add that if the man faced a situation where he could have prevented
the deaths of the city people at a lower cost he was morally obligated to act. The framing of the
current debate on gun control has pit the right to bear arms against the right to life by asking
Congress to respond to the wave of gun related homicides by limiting the right to bear arms. If
life is an absolute right, it would be reasonable to conclude that the right to bear arms must be
subordinated in this conflict. Gewirth’s absolute rights proposition has been criticized by
utilitarians, and consequentialists among others.
Even if you do not agree that the right to life is absolute, you might recognize its
historical significance in the United States. The right to life has long been seen as an important
7/22/2019 A Rights Theory Analysis of the Second Amendment By. Najwa Sharpe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-rights-theory-analysis-of-the-second-amendment-by-najwa-sharpe 17/22
16
inalienable right. Many of the framers of the U.S. Constitution were influenced by natural law
teachings. Thomas Jefferson took from the teachings of John Locke when he authored the
Declaration of Independence. In the Declaration of Independence the thirteen States declared:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness…
The right to life is also expressly mentioned in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The fact
that the right to life is just as deeply rooted in American history as the right to bear arms alludes
to its potential legitimacy as a countervailing factor which should be weighed against the right to
bear arms in the gun control debate.
CONCLUSION
The limitations mentioned in this paper suggest that the right to bear arms is not absolute.
Where a certain type of gun seems to be inflicting an inordinate amount of harm on innocent
Americans we are justified in limiting the right of our fellow Americans to bear that arm. If
Congress finds the courage to utilize its power to legislate, it is likely that they will find favor
with courts. The Court has previously expressed its support of targeted laws that restrict our
ability to possess guns that are not typically used for lawful purposes. While gun advocates could
argue that you can use an assault weapon for hunting, they must acknowledge that assault
weapons are typically used in theaters of war, and increasingly used in civilian settings. (Word
Count: 4,862)
7/22/2019 A Rights Theory Analysis of the Second Amendment By. Najwa Sharpe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-rights-theory-analysis-of-the-second-amendment-by-najwa-sharpe 18/22
17
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Alfano, Sean. “Va. Tech Killer Bought 2nd Gun Online.” CBS News. Feb. 11, 2009. <
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500690_162-2708822.html>.
2. Blake, Aaron. “Is it Fair to Call Them ‘Assault Weapons’?.” Washington Post . Jan. 17,
2013. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/17/is-it-fair-to-call-
them-assault-weapons/>.
3. Campbell, Tom. Rights A Critical Introduction. New York: Routledge, 2006.
4. Cloud, John. “The Troubled Life of Jared Loughner.” Time Magazine. Jan. 15, 2011. <
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2042358-1,00.html>.
5. Cox, Chris W. “Statement from Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director , Regarding
Inaccurate NBC Story Alleging the NRA Won’t Oppose Background Check Bill.” NRA
ILA. Mar. 12, 2013. <http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/statement-
from-chris-w-cox-nra-ila-executive-director-regarding-inaccurate-nbc-story-alleging-
that-nra-wont-oppose-background-check-bill.aspx>.
6. Curry, Colleen et al. “Colorado Movie Theater Shooting: Suspect Bought 4 Guns, 6,000
Rounds of Ammunition in Past 60 Days.” ABC News. Jul. 20, 2012.
<http://abcnews.go.com/US/colorado-movie-theater-shooting-suspect-bought-guns-
6000/story?id=16817842>.
7. Dao, James. “Aurora Gunman’s Arsenal: Shotgun, Semiautomatic Rifle and, at the End, a
Pistol.” NY Times. Jul. 23, 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/us/aurora-
gunmans-lethal-arsenal.html?_r=0>.
8. Dershowitz, Alan. Rights from Wrongs. New York: Basic Books, 2004.
9. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
7/22/2019 A Rights Theory Analysis of the Second Amendment By. Najwa Sharpe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-rights-theory-analysis-of-the-second-amendment-by-najwa-sharpe 19/22
18
10. Dworkin, Ronald. “Rights as Trumps.” Theories of Rights. Jeremy Waldon. New York:
Oxford Press, 1984. 153-167. Print.
11. Dyck, Arthur J. Rethinking Rights and Responsibilities The Moral Bonds of Community,
Washington DC: Georgetown Press, 2005.
12. Ferner, Matt. “James Holmes, Suspected Aurora Shooter, May Have Described Killings
In Package: Report.” Huffington Post . Jul. 25, 2012.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/26/report-suspect-described-
_n_1705093.html>.
13. Flatow, Nicole. “Senators Destroy Ted Cruz’s Argument Against the Assault Weapons
Ban.” Think Progress. Mar. 14, 2013. <
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/14/1720351/senators-destroy-ted-cruzs-
argument-against-the-assault-weapons-ban/?mobile=nc>.
14. Flegenheimer, Matt and Somaiya, Ravi. “A Mother, a Gun Enthusiast and the First
Victim.” NY Times. Dec. 15, 2012. <
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/nyregion/friends-of-gunmans-mother-his-first-
victim-recall-her-as-generous.html>.
15. Geier, Kathleen. “500 Murders in Chicago in 2012; 435 caused by guns.” Washington
Monthly. Dec. 30, 2012. <http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-
a/2012_12/500_murders_in_chicago_in_2012042087.php>.
16. Gewirth, Alan. “Are There Any Absolute Rights?.” Theories of Rights. Jeremy Waldon.
New York: Oxford Press, 1984. 91-109. Print.
7/22/2019 A Rights Theory Analysis of the Second Amendment By. Najwa Sharpe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-rights-theory-analysis-of-the-second-amendment-by-najwa-sharpe 20/22
19
17. Good, Chirs. “The Case Against Gun Background Checks.” ABC News. Apr. 10, 2013.
<http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/the-case-against-gun-background-
checks/>.
18. Greg Botelho et al. “Newtown Shooting Details Revealed in Newly Released
Documents.” CNN . Mar. 29, 2013. <http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/28/us/connecticut-
shooting-documents>.
19. Grimaldi James V. and Kunkle, Fredrick. “Gun Used in Tucson was Purchased Legally;
Arizona Laws Among Most Lax in Nation.” Washington Post . Jan. 9, 2011.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2011/01/09/AR2011010901912.html>.
20. Gruver, Mead and Peipert, Thomas. “Aurora Shooting: Shock. Sadness, A Search for
Clues.” Huffington Post . Jul. 21, 2012.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/21/aurora-shooting-shock-
sad_n_1691538.html>.
21. Herszenhorn, David M. and Lacey, Marc. “In Attack’s Wake, Political Repercussions.”
NY Times. Jan. 8, 2011.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1
&>.
22. “Historical Documents." Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, (American
Memory from the Library of Congress). Apr. 22, 2013.
<2013.http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html>.
23. Johnson, Kevin. “Panel Gets Cho Mental-Health Files.” USA Today. Jun. 15, 2007.
<http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/2007-06-14-cho-mental-health-records_N.htm>.
7/22/2019 A Rights Theory Analysis of the Second Amendment By. Najwa Sharpe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-rights-theory-analysis-of-the-second-amendment-by-najwa-sharpe 21/22
20
24. Kelleher, James B. and Allen, Jonathan. “Chicago Homicide Rate Spikes, While New
York’s Plummets.” Huffington Post . Dec. 28, 2012. <
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/29/chicago-homicide-rate-new-
york_n_2378073.html>.
25. Lagorio, Christine. “Viginia Tech Killer Used Easy-To-Get Guns.” CBS News. Feb. 11,
2009. <http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-2691645.html>.
26. Lee J. Strang, Originalism, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution: A
Unique Role in Constitutional Interpretation?, 111 Penn St. L. Rev. 413, 432-436 (2006).
27. McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010).
28. Michael Busch, Is the Second Amendment an Individual or A Collective Right: United
States v. Emerson's Revolutionary Interpretation of the Right to Bear Arms, 77 St. John's
L. Rev. 345 (2003).
29. Plumer, Brad. “Everything You Need to Know About the Assault Weapons Bam, in One
Post.” Washington Post . Dec. 17, 2012. <
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-
to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/>.
30. Stanflin Douglas et al. “33 Dead in Va. Tech Shootings.” USA Today. Apr. 17, 2008.
<http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-04-16-virginia-tech_N.htm>.
31. Tellez, Roseanne. “Pendleton Murder Suspect Violated Probation 3 Times.” CBS Local
Chicago. Feb. 12, 2013. < http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/02/12/pendleton-murder-
suspect-violated-probation-3-times/>.
7/22/2019 A Rights Theory Analysis of the Second Amendment By. Najwa Sharpe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-rights-theory-analysis-of-the-second-amendment-by-najwa-sharpe 22/22
21
32. Toobin, Jeffrey. “So You Think You Know the Second Amendment?.” New Yorker . Dec.
18, 2012. < http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-
second-amendment.html>.
33. Unknown. “Boy, 15, Found Shot Near Obama’s Chicago Home.” NBC Chicago. Apr. 23,
2013. < http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-shootings-204213131.html>.
34. Unknown. “Guns, Knives, Ammo and Gear: Adam Lanza’s Arsenal, Item by Item.” NBC
News. Mar. 28, 2013. <http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/28/17501802-guns-
knives-ammo-and-gear-adam-lanzas-arsenal-item-by-item?lite>.
35. Unknown. “NRA: Only Way to Stop a Bad Guy With a Gun is With a Good Guy With a
Gun.” CBS LOCAL DC . Dec. 21, 2012. <http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/12/21/nra-
only-way-to-stop-a-bad-guy-with-a-gun-is-with-a-good-guy-with-a-gun/>.
36. Unknown. “What’s in Obama’s Gun Control Proposal.” NY Times. Jan. 16, 2013. <
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/16/us/obama-gun-control-
proposal.html?_r=0>.
37. U.S. Const. amend. II.
38. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
39. Wenar, Leif, "Rights", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall 2011. Edward N.
Zalta (ed.), <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/rights/>.
40. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).