Thesis advisor: Marc Landy / This dissertation addresses the question of how the issue of gun rights is debated and resolved in American politics. While the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) has often been described as a distinct political win for gun rights advocates, it left open crucial political and regulatory questions that remain unsettled, including the constitutional permissibility of gun control measures and the proper balance between state and federal authority in establishing those parameters. This dissertation provides an account of the Second Amendment’s political development and its interpretation as a civic, state, collective, and individual right, and how shifts in interpreting the right to keep and bear arms have changed the way competing claims of gun rights and gun control are reconciled through the political process. Doing so aligns the Second Amendment with other major changes in American politics – outside of the courts – including the growing role of the federal government, the increase in polarization and the importance of cultural issues to partisan politics, and the rise of the gun rights movement as a pivotal political force. Using the lens of American political development, this dissertation is structured to identify critical junctures over time when changing interpretations of the Second Amendment transformed the politics of gun control, which include policy changes, partisan realignment, and broader patterns of federalism. Detailed historical and legal research of primary sources was conducted, including analysis of newspapers, journals, correspondence, as well as early state constitutions, records from the Constitutional Convention, briefs from state legislatures regarding gun regulation, and relevant court cases. Based on this research, the evidence is sufficiently compelling to support the collectivist reading of the Second Amendment rather than the individual rights interpretation. In other words, the Second Amendment was intended to protect the states from federal encroachment by guaranteeing their right to arm their militias – not to grant an individual right – a position that was subsequently maintained by the courts until District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) overturned decades of precedent, further complicating the already contentious issue of gun rights in American politics. Chapter One focuses on the historical and intellectual origins of the right to bear arms that influenced early state constitutions and gun regulations. Chapters Two through Four discuss the nature of arms-bearing during the Revolutionary era; the debates surrounding the drafting and ratification of the Second Amendment; and the crucial role of the state militia system to early notions of republican government. Subsequent chapters provide an account of the changing nature of the state militia system, ultimately resulting in the formation of the National Guard; early legal interpretations of the right to bear arms, including whether the Second Amendment applied to the states; and a comprehensive account of federal gun legislation. From there, Chapter Seven discusses the development of collective rights theory and the Supreme Court’s traditional position on the Second Amendment. Chapters Eight and Nine turn to the rise of the gun rights movement; the establishment of the National Rifle Organization as an influential political actor and how the Second Amendment was politicized to advance its cause; changes to federal gun legislation; and the development of individual rights theory and its influence on the partisan debate about gun control, including a literature review to account for the “New Standard Model” of Second Amendment scholarship. Chapter Ten analyzes the milestone decisions District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) and also provides a detailed account of the process of incorporating the Second Amendment against the states, arguing that even though the Supreme Court established the individual right to keep and bear arms, its traditional interpretation as a states’ right must be maintained in the interest of federalism. The Conclusion further advances this assertation, contending that the intense debate about gun rights in American politics could be tempered by allowing the states greater latitude to regulate both gun control and gun rights. Under a federalized system of well-regulated liberty that emphasizes state autonomy, the states would be free to either limit or expand the right to keep and bear arms based on the demands of their constituents, which balances the politics of gun control with the constitutional protections of the Second Amendment. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2023. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Political Science.

The recent mass shooting on October 1, 2017 in Las Vegas, Nevada has been marked in history as the worst mass shooting in the United States to this point. The details of the shooting beg the question, is it coincidence that it happened in Nevada, a state with some of the least restrictive gun control laws? Mass shootings have become an unfortunate part of reality in the United States, but these are fairly uncommon occurrences. While they are horrific and deserve attention, daily gun violence cannot be forgotten. In the face of such a multitude of gun violence, what can be done to prevent future violence from occurring? This paper compares Nevada and California, two states that are geographically similar, but could not be more different when it comes to gun control. The paper draws connections between state gun control laws and gun violence trends in an attempt to determine what the best course of action is for addressing the problem.

This thesis explores the creation of the Second Amendment and how it has been interpreted over time. The purpose of this thesis is to understand present-day debates over gun control and offer an interpretation of the right that best suits the modern era. By analyzing the history of gun ownership in the United States, it is clear that the intention of the Second Amendment was to extend the right to the individual and should not be limited to collective use. As the Bill of Rights was extended to protect the people from state governments, the history of states’ rights in the regulation of firearms should be taken into account. With a country divided in their views on gun control policy, states should maintain the power to regulate arms, with federal courts intervening only when legislation is particularly radical. This thesis offers an interpretation of the Second Amendment best suited for the nation on both historical and practical by investigating the most prominent debates today: individual vs. collective rights, federal vs. states’ rights. With all things considered, this thesis concludes the most suitable interpretation of the Second Amendment for the people is: a right of the people protected, as individuals, from federal infringement, and regulated by the states, that are checked by the federal courts only when deemed necessary.

In 2008, the Supreme Court announced its decision in the landmark Second Amendment case, D.C. v. Heller. In its decision, the Court construed the scope of the right to bear arms for the first time. To that end, the Court found that the right to arms is an individual right, unconnected with military service. In this essay, I use the opinion of the Court and the dissents thereto as a lens by which to view the history and historiography of the right to bear arms, as well as the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the subject. In the course of this analysis, I argue that there are numerous problems with the Court's reasoning, as well as that of the dissents. Further, complications and ambiguities in the historical record have contributed to the misunderstanding of the original meaning of the Second Amendment and its appropriate interpretation as part of the Constitutional text. I argue that the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment is one that construes the right as robust and individual, worthy of its place in the Bill of Rights, but certainly subject to reasonable regulation.

One of the most hotly contested topics in the world today revolves around an object. An object that has caused debate among all members of society both in the United States, and all across the globe. But how could an object, something that on its own does nothing, spur such heated argument? This object is the evolution of invention and the product of fighting amongst each other. This object changes the way people think and how they act. This object can be used for both good and bad. This object is a gun. This research project will explore the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution in the 21st century, providing an in depth examination of firearm freedoms and their relationship with public safety and interests. This research is integral to our society, both politically and publically. Firearms are a significant aspect of our country, a longstanding right that many people view as one of the most essential rights of a United States citizen. The research presented will examine vital aspects of the debate regarding firearm rights, and analyze the relationship between firearm freedoms and public safety. This thesis will examine the benefits and detriments regarding firearm freedoms and their relationship with public safety. This thesis will first establish the necessary background information, including general information, legislation, and statistics, in order to analyze the aforementioned relationship. The next step in the analysis is to examine the benefits of firearm freedoms, as well as the problems with having unlimited firearm freedoms. This thesis will also examine other essential areas regarding this debate, including political impact, public opinion, and global comparisons. The thesis will conclude with possible alternatives for legislation regarding firearms, and an analysis of the likely proper path upon which to proceed.

This work is intended to evaluate President Obama’s gun control policies by determining whether stricter federal gun control laws should apply within theUnited States. This paper examines whether setting legal standards at a national level would effectively reduce gun related violence and mass shootings on a local and state level. These include events such as Sandy Hook Elementary inNewton,Connecticut, the Virginia Polytechnic school shootings, and theAuroraTheatershooting inDenver,Colorado. Specifically, could executive orders proposed by the president, such as assault weapon bans, rigorous background checks on gun sales, submission of mental health records to the FBI Databases, and increased aid between states and mental health care institutions effectively reduce horrific incidences of gun related violence. Using gun control data from past and present as our research, we will determine whether stricter gun control policies have deterred violent crimes, murder rates, suicides and mass shootings. Since our research focuses on policy solutions as an alternative to reduce mass shootings, not the psychological make ups and environmental factors of mass shooters, we will omit America’s gun culture as a variable within our study: such as the effects violent video games and movies could have on the psyche of troubled individuals. After carefully analyzing gun date related to gun violence and crime, this work will attempt to suggest whether or not President Obama’s gun control policies will pass in Congress and which legislation will be the most effective in limiting gun violence and mass shootings.

This work is intended to evaluate President Obama’s gun control policies by determining whether stricter federal gun control laws should apply within theUnited States. This paper examines whether setting legal standards at a national level would effectively reduce gun related violence and mass shootings on a local and state level. These include events such as Sandy Hook Elementary inNewton,Connecticut, the Virginia Polytechnic school shootings, and theAuroraTheatershooting inDenver,Colorado. Specifically, could executive orders proposed by the president, such as assault weapon bans, rigorous background checks on gun sales, submission of mental health records to the FBI Databases, and increased aid between states and mental health care institutions effectively reduce horrific incidences of gun related violence. Using gun control data from past and present as our research, we will determine whether stricter gun control policies have deterred violent crimes, murder rates, suicides and mass shootings. Since our research focuses on policy solutions as an alternative to reduce mass shootings, not the psychological make ups and environmental factors of mass shooters, we will omit America’s gun culture as a variable within our study: such as the effects violent video games and movies could have on the psyche of troubled individuals. After carefully analyzing gun date related to gun violence and crime, this work will attempt to suggest whether or not President Obama’s gun control policies will pass in Congress and which legislation will be the most effective in limiting gun violence and mass shootings.

The following thesis will merge the field of legal studies with the field of Science, Technology, and Society, and will focus on issues surrounding the gun control debate. The goal is to ultimately bring new light to this hot- button legal topic through the use of STS scholarship. STS tools and theories, which have previously been absent from most gun control discussions, have much to contribute to the discourse in terms of motivating the need for gun control, fully understanding the user-gun relationship, breaking down misconceptions about the technology and its role in society, and further understanding the complex societal network within which guns exist in America. This will begin first with a discussion of the legal history and background of firearms in the United States, and will be followed by an STS analysis of technological agency and somnambulism as they can be applied to guns. Following this, the Actor Network in which firearms in America are imbedded will be explored, in order to better understand why they have been so difficult to regulate. Although this thesis will be heavily policy and law-focused, the aim is not to propose any specific new policy, but instead to use STS to conceptualize gun issues from a new perspective that will allow misconceptions and blockades to be confronted head-on.

One-Third of a Nation, the Second Amendment, a Living Newspaper Play Thesis By Linda Ann Watt for a MFA Degree in Theatre Pedagogy Documentary theatre, including living newspapers and verbatim theatre, use socio-political commentary at critical moments in history to disseminate facts and offer ideological critique dramatizing the crisis through the lens of emotion, which can incite societal change. This thesis explores this didactic medium with a written play about the second Amendment and gun violence.

Text in Afrikaans / Wanneer die konstitusionele invloed op borgstelling in die bree bespreek word, moet die bepalings van die Grondwet 200 van 1993 met inbegrip van die Handves van Menseregte en die onderliggende waardes, beginsels en doelstellings daartoe binne die Suid-Afrikaanse konteks inaggeneem word. Die algemene transformasie van die Suid-Afrikaanse gemeenskap in 'n verteenwoordigende demokrasie, veelvolkigheid van die Suid-Afrikaanse gemeenskap, eskalerende misdaadsyfer, wantroue van die gemeenskap in die regstelsel en die beklemtoning van fundamentele regte is aspekte wat figureer binne die Suid-Afrikaanse borgtogreg. Die tradisionele benadering dat die bewyslas op die beskuldigde rus tydens borgtogverrigtinge is binne die moderne borgtogreg en in die lig van die Grondwet 200 van 1993 asook die Tweede Strafproseswysigingswet 75 van 1995 onvanpas. As algemene reel behoort die bewyslas by 'n borgaansoek op die staat te rus op oorwig van waarskynlikhede. In sekere spesifiek omskrewe gevalle soos vervat inartikel60(11) van die Tweede Strafproseswysigingswet rus die bewyslas op die beskuldigde. Hierdie beperking is regverdigbaar in tenne van artike133 van die Grondwet 200 van 1993. Daar bestaan verder nie voldoende rede om nie gebruik te maak van die bewyslasbegrip as gevestigde prosessuele maatreel tydens borgverrigtinge nie. In die moderne Suid-Afrikaanse borgtogreg moet 'n balans gehandhaaf word tussen die belange van die gemeenskap en die fundamentele regte van die individu. Die howe moet in elke spesifieke geval· inhoud aan hierdie beginsel verleen. / When the effect of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 200 of 1993 on bail is considered, the transformation of the South African community, multi-racial society, high crimerate, disillusionment of the community with regard to the courtsystem and importance of fundamental rights must be regarded. The traditional approach that the onus is upon the accused (in his capacity as applicant) to prove on a balance of probability that the court should exercise its discretion in favour of granting bail and, in discharging this burden, he must show that the interests of justice will not be prejudiced, is in terms ofthe Constitution 200 of 1993 and the Criminal Procedure Second Amendment Act 75 of 1995 unacceptable. It is submitted that the onus should be on the State to place grounds before the Court why there should be an exercise of discretion in favour of the State for further detention of the individual. In terms of certain spesific crimes as described in article 60(11) of the Criminal Procedure Second Amendment Act theis placed on the accused. This exception is acceptable as it prescribes to the requirements in article 33 of the Constitution 200 of 1993. It is submitted that there is no reason why onus as excepted evidentiary rule should not be used in bail applications. A balance between the interest of the community and fundamental rights of the individual must be kept in modern law regarding bail. It is in the hands of the courts to substantiate this balance. / Criminal & Procedural Law / LL.M. (Criminal & Procedural Law)