Emma Caspi

Voices Editor

Photo via The Epicenter LA

On September 4th, 2024, 14-year-old Colt Gray was accused of shooting two students and two teachers, as well as wounding 9 individuals at Apalachee High School in Georgia. He allegedly acquired the AR-15-style rifle as a Christmas gift from his father, Colin Gray. Two days after the shooting, Colt Gray was charged as an adult, with murder, while his father faced charges of involuntary manslaughter and second-degree murder. Shockingly, Colin Gray had not broken any gun laws, considering it is legal in Georgia to equip minors with rifles and to refuse any safety or precautionary measures concerning the access of firearms. 

According to the American Bill of Rights (1789), the Second Amendment grants everyone the right to bear arms:

“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 is considered to have two parts: “a well-regulated Militia” is the “prefatory clause” and “keep and bear arms” is the “operative clause.”

The National Constitution Center explains that providing every citizen with a firearm gave rise to local militias, which the Founding Fathers claimed was a better mode of protection, preventing tyrannical reign and ensuring widespread safety and equality. Therefore, the Second Amendment protected the right to own a firearm from the National government’s infringement so that communities could pursue their ‘local militia duties’ without fear. The Second Amendment previously valued the protection, freedom, and equality to whom it applied. Faced with the reality of the Apalachee shooting and many others, American students are not protected, free, or equal.

Faced with the reality of the Apalachee shooting and many others, American students are not protected, free, or equal.

American citizens no longer engage in ‘local militia duties’, which makes the Second Amendment highly contentious. If the militia caused “the right to keep and bear arms,” shouldn’t the Second Amendment be obsolete and irrelevant? According to the legal case District of Columbia v. Heller, the right to bear arms still stands regardless of modern circumstances. On June 26th, 2008, the Supreme Court officially ruled that the Second Amendment should be interpreted as an inherent right to own arms for lawful purposes. One reason for their interpretation stems from the belief that the prefatory clause does not limit the operative clause. 

So, why doesn’t the U.S.A. repeal the Second Amendment and call it a day? After all, the NPR states that approximately 70% of Americans want more gun control. As simplistic as repealing the Second Amendment sounds, the founding fathers purposefully made it tedious, requiring a successful national consensus to affect any change. Instead of making changes to the amendment, the American government has tried to work around the contingencies, careful enough not to infringe on people’s constitutional rights. However, working around the Second Amendment oftentimes results in ineffective change and futile attempts to cease school shootings and violence.

Vice President Kamala Harris reveals on her campaign trail that she “favour[s]…the Second Amendment and… know[s] [America] need[s] reasonable gun safety laws.” She therefore believes that the Second Amendment and gun control are not mutually exclusive. Commenting on the Georgia school shooting, Harris says “We have to end this epidemic of gun violence in our country.” My question is, who are “we” and how can “we” end this “epidemic” if there are constant loopholes within the Second Amendment?

On March 24th, 2024, Harris announced two “gun safety solutions” with efforts to prevent school gun violence. The first implemented a National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center (ERPO), which would provide training and support, and optimise the usage of red flag laws– laws that grant family members and law enforcement the right to revoke firearms if necessary. The second urges all states to pass red flag laws and to use the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) funding to help implement pre-existing laws. Harris’ logic follows that red flag laws provide resources that can help individuals “before tragedy occurs.” 

But what if you took ‘tragedy’ out of the equation altogether and focused on prohibition instead of prevention? Indeed, the logic that a gun is only a piece of machinery until misused by a dangerous person sounds plausible in theory, but who are these “dangerous people” and how do we know what support they need? Harris’ prevention efforts seek to meet the needs of potentially harmful individuals and recognize crises. However, harm and crises are not one size fits all. Tragedy strikes because many fly under this makeshift detector, finding access to guns regardless of what preparation, training or support the government provides. 

The Washington Post reveals that even with “Georgia child welfare workers, four school systems, three county sheriff’s departments and two local police agencies” working alongside Colt and his family, they inevitably failed at preventing the shooting. So, while the White House publishes fact sheets and implements its “efforts to keep schools safe from gun violence,” American schools restlessly await meticulous and substantial laws to protect students.