What if every one of us had the power to take a life instantly? Would we feel free to take other lives recklessly or would we use it to protect our lives from being taken away recklessly?
The Taoist monks in 808 AD wanted to make a “divine elixir from the gods” that extended human lives using saltpetre, sulphur and charcoal. They ended up creating a substance that only managed to emit hot gas when set on fire. It didn’t take long for them to realize that if this substance was lit up in a confined space, it found its way out with a big explosion and metaphorically the Taoists had actually succeeded in making an “elixir” that did extend human life but it came at the cost of taking away another.
As time went by, the use of this substance, spread throughout the world and from the 18th century, “Gun Powder and Guns” became the most integral part of every war that has happened ever since, including wars such as World War 1, World War 2 and the Civil War in the US. Through a particular territory’s militia and with huge involvement of the people in politics and military, guns slipped their way into the day to day lives of individuals, thus giving rise to an important question of law. Should the ordinary people be allowed to carry guns as a mechanism of self-defence or will the very object of “self-defence and peace” be destroyed if the people are allowed to carry their own guns? The world still fumbles as to which side to lean on.
The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution is read as “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.” It was taken from the English Common Law and William Blackstone saw the purpose of such a right to be that of self-defence and resistance to oppression.[1] The most influential framer of the Constitution James Madinson gave a more specific purpose, being that the freedom to bear arms will promote the idea of the federal army to be kept in check by civilian forces and the state militia would be able to repel the danger of oppression from a “federal army”. The US being a federal state seeks to give more autonomy and freedom to the states it comprises of and the 2nd amendment is viewed as an embodiment of the ideology.
It is believed to this day in the US that the true glory of freedom is achieved only when an individual is free of all reliance. They’ve always stood by the principle of dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. As time went by the purpose of the amendment shifted from representing the freedom of a state to that of an individual. The country runs on the ideology that no individual should depend on another individual or group, even if it is the army, for security and must be fully equipped to secure their own safety. Finally, In District of Columbia v. Heller, it was for the first time expressly stated by the supreme court that the second amendment protected the rights of an individual to have a gun for the purpose of self-defence.[2] This landmark case is believed to have deepened the free will of an individual, by many in the US. In Caetano V. Massachusetts (2016), it was held by the supreme court, reiterating previous judgements, that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding and that its protection is not limited to only those weapons useful in warfare”.
Guns are now a symbol of freedom in the US. It represents the capability of an individual to be independent and not require anybody to rely on for his/her own safety or defence. It’s also a reason why the US is one of the toughest countries to invade apart from its already tight standing army. Every politician, irrespective of their genuine beliefs on gun laws, always manages to put a façade of acceptance of the 2nd amendment to gather popularity and votes from the people. Guns are available in common stores like Walmart and the background check by the FBI, on average takes only 108 seconds. In terms of Gun owning countries, The US ranks no 1, as there are 120 firearms owned per 100 residents.
On the other hand in India, the gun laws are way stricter. This country ranks 120th in the Gun owning index at 5.3 firearms owned per 100 residents. [3]While the people, in general, do not delve into the idea of being independent for security, the others believe it’s a mechanism of the government to keep the people from being free. The Arms Act of 1959 and the Arms Rules 1962 of India does not allow the sale, possession, manufacture, import, export, acquisition and transport of firearms and ammunition and can only do so with a license, which in itself is a strict process. The Government in India has a monopoly over sale and production of firearms with the only exception being “breech-loading smoothbore shotguns”, of which only a certain number can be made or imported.
There are 2 categories of guns as per the arms act and they are Prohibited Bore and Non-Prohibited Bore, where a predominant number of guns fall in the prohibited category. Though it was also the duty of the state and district magistrates to grant licenses before 1987, it’s now become a central government dominated arena. The licenses are valid for only 3 years and need to be renewed after that. Even for the sanction of a non-prohibited arm, the person applying for a license must have sufficient cause, as to being a subject facing a threat; The license for a prohibited type of gun is even more stringent and has become next to impossible post-2014. The reasons cited for this is always national security and the only exceptions are those who belong to the army and a limited number of professional shooters.
The people of India are reliant when it comes to security. It is even fair to say that the citizens of the US are closer than us to “political freedom” but freedom comes at a cost. On average since 2014, there have been 38,355 gun deaths in the US out of which 23,941 were suicides and 14,414 were homicides and gun homicides account for about 73% of the Country’s homicides. [4]There have been over 40 shooter incidents in the year 2020 and the US manages to top the charts in terms of deaths caused due to gun violence. One cannot deny that this is the result of the same gun laws that stand for the freedom of the people.
So is the “glory of freedom” worth the price or is strict gun laws like that in India the way forward for the world?
Perhaps the answer lies not in the law itself but the “background checks” that come with it.
Predominantly in the US, the background checks before buying a gun are “instant” and they last for 108 seconds on average. In these 108 seconds, information about the buyer is scanned from the FBI’S Database that has accumulated information from the state police and other agencies with regards to the buyer’s criminal record, addiction, restraining orders and history of mental illness. If the buyer has a history of crime or abnormal behaviour, he/she is denied access to the license but if otherwise, acquires the license. This system of the check is believed to be outdated and missing millions of records as it allowed The Charleston Church shooter, Dylann roof to pass the check, despite criminal records and The Sutherland spring church shooter to pass the check as well, as the air force had failed to send his domestic abuse convictions to the FBI.
Perhaps the solution to this lies in one of the states that strive for its own autonomy from within the US, which is Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, before an individual goes to the gun store he/she must take a gun safety course and submit applications, references and fingerprints to the police department. Not only is the FBI DataBase checked but all local law enforcement agencies where the buyer has lived are directly contacted along with the department of mental health. This system of background checks takes 3 weeks but has been successful in reducing the rates of gun violence as states like Massachusetts and Connecticut which have resorted to the longer version of the background checks are known for drastically low rates of gun violence as compared to the other states in the US. Even this scheme of background check that takes 3 weeks or a little more than that has been scrutinized for curbing the citizens’ right to own guns as such a background check allows for the cancellation of a license if any absurd behaviour of the buyer is noticed, even if such buyer does not have a prior criminal record. The people believe that such a system allows for authorities to irrationally strip people of their rights to own guns especially when the country has a notorious history of oppressing the rights of black through hate organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan. Though the longer format of the check is subject to scrutiny, over 97%[5] of the people who take the check manage to pass.
Every option picked comes at the cost of losing the benefits of the other. While countries like India choose to be completely strict with regards to guns and countries like the US choose to give the rights to their citizens to hold guns, the middle ground that the world might look to lean towards is the allowance of guns with a more thorough background check like the one in Massachusetts. For such complexity in attaining the thorough glory of freedom only makes one think that if there is truly no such thing as complete freedom.
[1] Blackstone’s Commentaries Book 1 Ch 1
[2] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
[3] Gun Ownership and the Gun Control Index
[4] Firearms in the U.S. – statistics & facts by Statista Research Department
[5] Firearms in the U.S. – statistics & facts
