Gun legislation is a contested issue, and for the first time in almost a century, the debate has returned to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). This case has the dangerous potential to undo the forward progress made in gun legislation.

The case is the result of a New York Law restricting the transportation of firearms being challenged by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA). The law, which prevented gun owners from transporting their guns outside of city limits, has since been repealed. The Supreme Court, however, is still hearing the case. 

For gun rights activists, the case has the potential to extend the power of the Second Amendment through lifting other gun carry and transport restrictions. According to Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, “such a ruling could result in many more gun control laws being struck down.” This result would be an inappropriate application of a written amendment to the modern world. 

While the “right to bear arms” is often quoted, the Second Amendment actually states, “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.” In a time when fear of the government overpowering the people ran rampant, people were granted the right to organize a militia. 

The founding fathers wrote based on issues and technology that were prevalent after the revolution, new concerns have risen with changing times.

As the Constitution is referenced frequently in debates over gun rights, many people conveniently forget that writing from over 200 years ago is not guaranteed to be applicable today. The same Constitution that spoke of bearing arms also protected slavery and even counted those enslaved as three-fifths of a person. The issues with these causes were recognized, and ratified. It wasn’t an easy process, but it was necessary.

While allowing the people to form militias may not provoke the same moral issues as slavery, this part of the Constituion should not be interpreted as the right to unlimited gun ownership.

In the time period when the Second Amendment was written, typical firearms could only fire about three times a minute, a vast difference from guns available for purchase today. In addition to the different capabilities of previous firearms, similar issues with mass shootings were also not present. 

For senior Brenna Morley, this case does not belong in the Supreme Court. “People make the same arguments about repealing gun restrictions,” she said. “It’s time to stop referencing an old piece of legislation and progress forward.”

In the ongoing debate about gun legislation, along with the current Supreme Court case, the Second Amendment is bound to be referenced more. This piece of writing should not be the basis of determining gun legislation; it is a law of the past that should not determine the path of the future.

Gun violence in our country has been steadily increasing, with gun related deaths 16% higher from 2014 to 2017. While many Americans have pushed for more gun laws, the U.S. Supreme court heard their first gun rights case in nearly a decade.

On Dec. 2, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a New York City law restricting licensed holders to bring their locked and unloaded guns outside their homes to be transported beyond city limits. Although some politicians believe the court should drop this case, the NRA (National Rifle Association) and other gun rights groups hope to change this policy and protect citizens’ right to conceal a gun for self-defense.

According to Fox News author, Ronn Blitzer, “The fact the high court even considered this case prompted a stunning complaint earlier this year from Democratic senators, who filed a brief essentially threatening to pack the court absent changes.” With this factor at play, President Trump’s newly appointed justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, insisted that this case be investigated further even after New York City repealed the statute.

Although this case could mean further protection of Americans’ gun rights, Democrats continue to try and push this case out of the court in fear of lessened gun restrictions in New York City.

While a case involving gun restrictions has not received this kind of attention since 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller and 2010’s McDonald v. City of Chicago case, the Supreme Court’s interest shows a potential change in political policy.

Even so, Senate Democrats warned the supreme court of a possible rearranging in a brief release Monday. “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” the brief said. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'”

While Democrats aim to classify this case as “moot”, gun rights supporters continue to stand by the 2nd amendment. Senior Grace Theilen suspects this case shows promise of improved gun regulations in the near future. “I believe that guns should be allowed at home for self-defense, but I also believe that not just anyone should be allowed to purchase a gun. Stricter background checks could help pin-point unfit people,” said Theilen.

In today’s society, the push to pass gun laws has been overwhelmingly high as gun violence continues to spread. And while there is no denying the need for some gun requirements concerning buying and licensing, the right to bear arms should still be upheld. For it should be known that the person behind the gun should be at fault for lives lost, not the gun itself.

As this case is debated further in the years to come, the importance of the second amendment and the desperate need for improved gun regulations remains immensely relevant and imperative to a successful future for America.