Who Gets to Own a Gun?

“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.” — The Second Amendment, Constitution of the United States of America

Since its inception and addition into the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment (2A) has caused debate among the American people throughout history. Arguments as to whether our Founding Fathers intended for it to establish  the right to possess a firearm for self-defense or protect national security have long divided the nation. The nation’s stance on interpretations of the 2A has historically relied heavily on Supreme Court rulings that have evolved its meaning, with possession of personal firearms being ruled constitutional as recently as 2008 in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. This case ruled that the usage of the word “militia” was a prefatory clause that does not limit the operative (personal) clause of the amendment. In layman’s terms, the court ruled that the 2A is an introductory phrase, setting context but not actually restricting the core meaning of the amendment. These recent interpretations of the Second Amendment have led to widespread acceptance of the ruling as grounds to carry and possess a firearm and a law that must apply to every citizen. This article will examine the Republican party’s affiliation with gun ownership (since 45% of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents say they personally own a gun, compared with 20% of Democrats and Democratic leaners) and if the current administration’s rhetoric towards Second Amendment applications are universal, neutral, and fair.

Six years before the conclusion of the District of Columbia v. Heller, Silveria v. Lockyer, filed under California’s 9th District, ruled quite the opposite precedent for Heller, upholding California's state-wide general ban of semi-automatic firearms. The ruling also upheld that the Second Amendment did not guarantee individuals the right to bear arms, instead providing collective rights, this being exclusive to militia. Rulings throughout US history have been divisive and confusing due to varying interpretations, as different conclusions from different cases have guaranteed individual rights. An early court case such as Nunn v. Georgia in 1846 ruled that concealed-carry bans were valid, but limits on open carry were unconstitutional; while Presser v. Illinois in 1886 ruled that states can regulate arms freely. The argument of whether the 2A applies to the state or federal level and still fuels partisan divides over individual vs. collective rights. When it comes to the current Republican identity under Trump, Executive Order 14206 declares that: “[the] Second Amendment is an indispensable safeguard of security and liberty. It has preserved the right of the American people to protect ourselves, our families,” thus directly declaring it a personal right, centered in ‘protection’, rather than the security of the Free State. Families over the militia mentioned in the opening phrase of the amendment are core to current rhetoric regarding 2A standings from the GOP. However, when a gun is in the hands of those who politically disagree with them, a different perspective comes from leading voices of the Republican party, mostly when discussing . There wasn’t much uproar when civilian carrying of a firearm happened to occur during protests against the results of the 2020 election. Growing tensions and an alleged encouragement to “walk down to the Capitol” by Trump led to an invasion of the Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters and adjacent factions (such as QAnon). All that were charged for any related offense from these protests were pardoned by the Trump administration in 2025. While framed as an “indispensable safeguard,” the Trump administration brings a paradox to the table: this same “inalienable right” is deemed an inherent threat or a domestic terrorist when exercised by those who oppose the powers that be. Such a stance was used when justifying the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, a peaceful protester legally carrying a firearm in Minnesota during anti-ICE protests in January. And yet, this same administration placed a blanket pardon on almost 1600 individuals involved in the January 6 riots, including those convicted with assault of a police officer with a deadly weapon and had previous criminal records. The Justice Department has also broadened these pardons to include unrelated firearm charges and offenses stemming from January 6th.

Outside the U.S. Capitol during the January 6 attack on the building
Tyler Merbler from USA, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

The current administration’s actions heavily suggest a partisan view of who can and can not carry a firearm in good faith, and any actions that align with this party’s views will be deemed patriotic and exercising a “God-given liberty.” Contrarily, any mirrored carry on the left can and has been met with force and dangerously biased rhetoric, such as a “threat to public safety.” The central question to the Republican party is not if we can bear arms (as individuals, that is), as that has clearly been an astounding yes from previous judicial decisions and party values, but which type of individual this applies to. By pardoning those who have used arms to threaten policymaker’s procedures of an election while justifying the use of deathly force against those carrying arms in protests, the Second Amendment has shifted from a universal constitutional right (now with precedent) to a selective and targeted tool for political rule. If the “militia” is now political alignment of a people and not security of the entire state, then it has been successfully rewritten, not by courts, but by executive overturn and application.