Mediaboss Marketing

By Mark Johnson

Updated: April 16, 2023 Published: April 16, 2023

FILE - Light illuminates part of the Supreme Court building at dusk on Capitol Hill in Washington, Nov. 16, 2022. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File)

Growing concerns among people throughout the United States in response to increasing numbers of mass shootings and high rates of other firearm-related deaths and injuries has intensified debates about the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Many firearm owners have expressed concerns about preserving their Second Amendment rights.

Repealing the Second Amendment or any constitutional amendment would be extremely difficult. It would require a two-thirds vote of the U.S. House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths of the states. That could not happen any time soon, if ever.

So, what options do firearm safety advocates have for passing gun reform laws?

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June 2008 provides some guidance on this issue. In the District of Columbia vs. Heller decision, the Court affirmed an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia. This 5-4 majority decision was written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

However, Section 2 of this decision included the following statements. Like most rights, the Second Amendment rights are not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carry of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and public buildings, or laws imposing conditions on qualifications of commercial sale of arms. Millers holding (United States vs Miller decision 1939) that sorts of weapons protected are those in common use of the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

It appears that the Heller Supreme Court decision affirmed the individual right to possess firearms, but left open the possibilities of federal, state or local laws to promote firearm safety without violating the Second Amendment.

Mark S. Johnson retired from a career in public health and health service administration. He lives in Juneau and has lived in Alaska for 45 years.

The views expressed here are the writers and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.

View post:
OPINION: Interpreting the Second Amendment - Anchorage Daily News