Should ID Checks Be Required for Gun Sales?

Recommend (5) Comments (14)

In June, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment protects an “individual right” to keep and bear arms. So what is a “right,” and how do rights impact the debate over background checks?

Some would argue that all rights have limits, and that justifies running background checks upon those who want to own and carry firearms. After all, they argue, just look at what the courts have said in regard to the First Amendment -- one cannot use his freedom of speech to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.

But do officials gag everyone who goes into the theater to make sure they keep their mouths shut? Of course not. Such a restriction would be a “prior restraint” -- a restriction placed on honest citizens before they try to exercise their rights.  

In Near v. Minnesota (1931), the Supreme Court ruled that prior restraints on the freedom of speech are unconstitutional and suggested the government should punish the abuse of a right, not place prior restraints on the exercise of a right.  

To do so, turns a person’s rights into mere privileges.

So why the different standard when dealing with the Second Amendment? The language says that the individual right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” Thus, the Second Amendment provides its own definition of rights -- they are freedoms the people enjoy which cannot be denied by any government official unless a crime is committed, wherein the person forfeits his rights.

Just as our government does not gag moviegoers or place prior restraints upon newspaper publishers, neither should citizens be “gagged” before exercising their Second Amendment rights.