Graduation Year

2024

Date of Submission

4-2024

Document Type

Open Access Senior Thesis

Degree Name

Bachelor of Arts

Department

Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE)

Second Department

Government

Reader 1

George Thomas

Terms of Use & License Information

Terms of Use for work posted in Scholarship@Claremont.

Rights Information

© 2024 Nikhil Agarwal

Abstract

The individual right to bear arms for self-defence has been grounded by the modern Supreme Court in the Second Amendment and incorporated against the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, a close examination of both the majority and dissenting opinions in each of the three landmark gun-rights cases decided by the Supreme Court this century- DC v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen- reveal how difficult is to determine the original meaning of the Second Amendment, and expose weaknesses in the Court’s current substantive due process jurisprudence. Subsequently, the right in question stands on precarious legal grounds. This thesis seeks to re-orient our understanding of the individual right to bear arms for self-defence by treating it as an unalienable natural right retained by the people upon entering civil society, protected by the Ninth Amendment, and incorporated against the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause. In doing so, this thesis will shed light on the natural rights philosophy cherished by the Founding Fathers, explain why the Constitution must be read in light of that philosophy, provide a standard by which natural rights may be enforced by courts, and examine permissible gun legislation under that standard. Considerations of natural rights have been eschewed by the modern Court, but this thesis will hopefully serve as a blueprint for a constitutional jurisprudence rooted in natural rights and spark an important dialogue about the significance of natural rights in our constitutional republic.

Share

COinS