Gun Control – Background and History
< -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Home Back to Gun Control Index Back to Class Notes & Papers Index
The history of gun control begins in colonial America, where guns were prevalent for practical survival purposes, unlike Europe where it was unnecessary. (Kennett and Anderson, 35) Given such an environment, there were “[t]wo different paths of thought [which] led to the Second Amendment [to the U.S. Constitution]. [Endnote 1.] The first [concerned] the practical use of fireams by the colonists . . . The second path centered around the philosophical development of ideas concerning the civilian soldier and weapons ownership.” (Kennett and Anderson, 58) Further, there were “philosophical discussions [that] stemmed from English arguments stimulated by the Glorious Revolution in England. Certain English political philosophers attacked the concept of a standing army because it could be used the thwart the liberties of the people . . . To protect these rights they . . . endorsed the idea of citizen-soldiers. After all peaceful methods of securing redress grievances had been attempted, a call to arms was a final means of protecting individual rights. These philosophers were not considering an individual’s right to rebel, but only that of the body politic.” (Kennett and Anderson, 60) As I shall demonstrate later, this is in direct contradiction to today’s self-styled milita groups.
In any case, after much haggling, the Constitution was drafted without much mention of militias. Article I, Section 8, provides for rules by which Congress shall have certain authority respecting militias, with all remaining power reserved to the States; Article II, Section 2, provides that the President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Militias, when called in to service of the United States. The Second Amendment is the only place in the Constitution specifically mentioning a right to bear arms, and that in conjuction with militias. It was not until the Twentieth century that the right to bear arms became a serious question in the United States.
During the late Eighteenth century, before cities grew and crime became prevalent, views on gun ownership, as related to citizen-militias, stemmed from Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #29: “Where in the name of a common sense are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow citizens?” Concern that the government could protect the citizens against crime began as early as the mid-Nineteenth century. “The general tendency to keep arms or carry them on the person may well be linked to what has been called the ‘urban explosion’ that transformed American cities in the period 1820-1860. Its mechanism of everyday law enforcement did not keep pace with its growth, so that the inhabitant felt an increased need to fend for himself in this regard. The sense of personal insecurity in the face of crime probably did more to foster the trend toward personal armament that anything else, with sporadic outbreaks of mass violence accelerating the process from time to time.” (Kennett and Anderson, 148) However, in 1861, the New Orleans sheriff remarked that “the city was a ‘perfect hell on earth, and that nothing would ever put an end to the murders, manslaughters, and deadly assaults, till it was made penal to carry arms.” (Kennett and Anderson, 157-8) Yet there were no serious laws at this point restricting ownership or use of guns. “These disputes involved the right of self-defense versus limitations upon the carrying and use of firearms. . . . Laws concerning firearms dealt only with disapproval of concealed weapons . . .” (Kennett and Anderson, 158) It was considered “unsportsmanlike” to conceal a pistol. (Kennett and Anderson, 159) Still, as I have stated, the real controversy appeared with the Sullivan Law in the early Twentieth century.
The late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries saw massive immigration from Europe as well as growth in Marxist and Anarchist philosophies, all of which spurred a great deal of group and gang violence. (Kennett and Anderson, 167) These groups were eventually to become the Mafia and Communists, among tother racially or politically motivated violent groups, including the spin-off Chicago mobs of the 1920’s. The attitude in the 1920’s toward guns was divided: an advertisement for the Thompson Submachine Gun reflected the traditional belief that the police and honest citizens could mast crime through firepower (Kennett and Anderson, 131); another advertisement portended the beginning of a national anti-gun campaign (Kennett and Anderson, 132). The Sullivan Law, enacted by the State of New York on May 29, 1911, subjected to strict regulation not only the carrying of deadly weapons, but also their sale and simple possession. (Kennett and Anderson, 175) The three provisions of major importance were: 1) the unlicensed carrying of a concealable firearm by residents of cities, villages and towns became a felony, joining the slingshot and brass knuckles; 2) urban residents were required to secure permits to even possess concealable firearms – failure to do so was a misdemeanor; and 3) gun dealers were permitted to make sales only to those who presented “a permit for possessing or carrying [a concealable firearm] as required by law.” (Kennett and Anderson, 181-2) While there was a great deal of uproar about the law (Kennett and Anderson, 184) (including a humorous incident whereby a burglar was apprehended by the apartment owner bearing a gun – upon discovering the owner had no permit for the gun, they each agreed to part company and say nothing) (Kennett and Anderson, 183), the law apparently had a great deal of positive effect, as intended (Kennett and Anderson, 183), and remains on the books to this day.
Since the enactment of the Sullivan Law (which survived intact a challenge to its constitutionality in 1913), many other laws restricting the possession, sale, carrying and use of firearms have been enacted by the states and by the federal government. For the most part, efforts to repeal these laws have been in vain. It remains to be seen whether there has been a true Republican Revolution in the makeup of Congress, rather than a temporary fluctuation of power, and whether this will have any long-term effect on gun control legislation.