In recent years, Congress and state legislatures have passed gun control measures designed to curb rising violent crime. Innovative efforts have been made to tighten controls over the production, sale, ownership, and use of firearms largely because of the growing number of crimes committed by persons carrying a gun, along with numerous suicides and accidental deaths. Such legislation has prompted pro-gun and anti-gun groups to debate whether firearm regulations are constitutional and effective policies. Gun control advocates claim that the Constitution only protects the power of the states to maintain militias, while gun ownership advocates assert that the Constitution protects the right of the individual to own and use firearms.

At the center of the gun control issue lies the Second Amendment.  It states that "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." What prompted the passage of the provision was the early American view that citizen militias were necessary to protect against the power of the national government and prevent riots within their boundaries. The Founders wanted to make sure that Congress could not disarm and abolish the common practice of state maintained militias. It was not until the 1920s and 1930s that federal firearm legislation was enacted to control Prohibition.  In United States v. Miller (1939),  two persons were charged and convicted of violating the National Firearms Act of 1934 by transporting a sawed-off shotgun across state lines. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the federal statute.  All the justices held that the Second Amendment protects the right of states to maintain collective militias, not the individual right of the people to possess firearms. The majority held that "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 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 equipment or its use could contribute to the common defense."

Several decades later the justices construed the Miller ruling to permit government regulation of guns. In Adams v. Williams (1978), the Supreme Court declared that "there is under our decisions no reason why stiff laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a state may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police." In Lewis v. United States (1980), the Supreme Court decided that "restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based on constitutionally suspect criteria nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. The Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia..."Once again, the amendment was construed as protecting the power of state militias to counter the military force of the federal government and control rebellions within their respective boundaries.

Many lower courts have followed the logic of Lewis and Miller. State judges have upheld laws regulating the ownership and use of guns. In Burton v. Sills (1968), the New Jersey State Supreme Court decided "that under Miller, Congress, though admittedly governed by the second amendment, may regulate interstate firearms so long as the regulation does not impair the maintenance of the active, organized militias of the states." Federal judges have also upheld various laws requiring gun registration and banning the possession of weapons such as handguns and machine guns among others. In United States v. Hale (1992), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal law prohibiting the possession of military weapons. "We cannot" explained the judges, "conclude that the Second Amendment protects the individual possession of military weapons.  The rule emerging from Miller is that, absent a showing that the possession of a certain weapon has 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia,' the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess the weapon." Lewis, Miller, and other cases have provided the ammunition to exact an array of gun regulations.

However, there is historical evidence suggesting that early Americans thought that individuals possessed a right to own and use firearms. James Madison and others supported the Second Amendment based on the notion that armed citizens provided a bulwark against tyranny of government. Others argued that people have a natural right to possess guns for purposes of their self-preservation. Beyond the Second Amendment, there are other constitutional provisions that arguably protect the right to own and use guns. In Printz v. United States (1997), the Court overturned provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requiring state police officers to conduct background checks on all prospective handgun purchases. The justices held that these federal requirements infringed on state sovereignty as protected under the Tenth Amendment. Equally important, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit federal and state officials to deny anyone life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Presumably, the protection of liberty includes the right to own and use firearms, provided a person is not threatening the safety or rights of others. Of course, the ownership and use of firearms should be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner regulations such as laws requiring licensing and registration. Certainly early and modern Americans would not argue that persons have a constitutional right to own a tank, chemical weapon, or nuclear bomb. 

Still, the question remains whether gun control is an effective way to fight crime.  Is the availability of guns correlated to the high rate of violent crime within the United States? How can legislation be written to reduce the 22,000 gun-related deaths and the one million gun-related crimes committed every year? What effect will buyback programs, waiting periods and assault rifle bans have on gun-related crime? Why is the number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 people different among Japan (0.05), England (0.41), Canada (4.31) and the United States (14.24)? Why have Americans refused to outlaw guns like Great Britain and Japan? How has the western-frontier norm operated to keep gun-control to a minimum? Should law-abiding citizens have a constitutional right to own and use firearms to defend their person and property?