As of September 30th-, there have been 408 mass shootings in the United States in 2024 alone. In the last three months, there have been two attempted assassinations of a former U.S. president, both with the use of an assault rifle. And, earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided two of the country’s most high-profile cases on gun rights, bringing national attention to the judiciary. Nonetheless, even after all of the significant attention guns have received in the everyday lives of American citizens, only one state has a gun-related initiative on the ballot this November. This article will present the Second Amendment and the legal precedent limiting its scope and scale, explain its relevance to modern American politics, and frame that significance in the context of the upcoming election cycle. In advance of this November’s election, gun rights are not nearly as high of a priority as they ought to be, even though discourse surrounding guns remains extremely pervasive throughout all of American society.

While the Second Amendment enshrines a fundamental right to bear arms in the most important text in American history, the Constitution, the extent of this right is still quite obscure to most Americans. It is not widely known exactly what liberties the Second Amendment covers, or how the right has been interpreted by the nation’s highest court over time. The Second Amendment states that “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.” One of the shortest liberties protected under the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment has been constantly debated in modern political discourse, and the issue of gun rights has become a deeply partisan topic. 

Although the text of the amendment seems to cover a very narrow scope of the ability to possess and use guns, many modern political groups believe it to be an infrangible right. The truth is somewhere between the two extremes. While the Supreme Court has recently not shied away from deciding Second Amendment cases, the Court ruled infrequently on the protections provided by the Second Amendment for more than 200 years. In one particular case decided in 2008, District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court determined that a citizen possesses an individual right to keep and bear arms in the home for traditionally lawful purposes. Following this case, in 2010, the Court held in McDonald v. City of Chicago that such a right is “fundamental,” and in 2016 the Court decided Caetano v. Massachusetts, ruling that the scope of the Second Amendment protects modern weapons, not merely those in existence at the time of its writing.

2024 has already been one of the most critical years in American history in terms of defining new precedent on the Second Amendment. This year, the Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of two distinct cases relating to gun rights. In United States v. Rahimi, the Court ruled on whether or not someone can legally be dispossessed of their firearms if they have been served with a domestic-violence restraining order. In a nearly-unanimous 8-1 decision, the court ruled that when a person poses a credible threat to the safety of another, they may be temporarily disarmed without this disarmament violating the Second Amendment. This was an important decision that further placed restrictions on the protections offered by the Second Amendment while ensuring greater safety and protection for vulnerable populations. While the 1980 Supreme Court case Lewis v. United States affirmed that a prior felony conviction can be used as precedent for preventing the purchase of a firearm, this resolution further prevents the possession of dangerous weapons by unequivocally dangerous individuals. 

Additionally, the ruling in Garland v. Cargill determined that a firearm with a bump stock—a mechanism that allows a semi-automatic weapon to fire at the rate of an automatic weapon—does not meet the legal qualifications for a machine gun. Voting along ideological lines, the 6-3 conservative majority of the court found that, because a semi-automatic gun with a bump stock does not fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger,” and does not do so automatically, it does not meet the legal statutes for a “machine gun.” Expounding on the definition of protected firearms under Caetano v. Massachusetts, this ruling minimizes the legal definition of a machine gun. This ruling will have an enormous impact on the usage of bump stocks moving forward as it validates the equipment used countless times in recent years, including in the incredibly deadly Las Vegas mass shooting in 2017 that killed 60 people. At this time, bump stocks are banned in only 15 states and the District of Columbia, so while this ruling does not overturn the bans at the state level, it allows state governments to decide the future of bump stocks, opening the door for the wider availability and accessibility of the devices.

And, as the Supreme Court began their most recent term in October, one of the first cases presented concerned the future of “ghost guns,” or firearms produced or assembled by individuals, making them unregulated and unlicensed. This is yet another crucial case on the future of gun rights in the United States, an issue that involves the safety, security, and freedom of millions of Americans, the third in a year already enshrined as one of the most influential in shaping domestic gun policy in history. 

In advance of this election, it is important to understand not only why this election is so important in determining the future of gun rights, but also why this issue has been overlooked by candidates at the state and federal levels. The platforms presented by presidential candidates Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are distinctly different from one another, generally in line with the stances presented by each of their parties. After pressure from the National Rifle Association (NRA) in 2019, then President Trump abandoned his previous policy on establishing red-flag laws—laws that permit temporary seizure of an individual’s firearms if a judge determines that they pose a danger to themself or others— after mass shootings around the country. The funding and endorsements that Trump receives from the NRA will influence his political interests and guide his policy as president. Since then, Trump has proposed tax credits for teachers who keep a concealed carry weapon on school grounds and changed international restrictions that make it easier for domestic gun manufacturers to sell their products to foreign buyers. Furthermore, as Trump had the opportunity to appoint three conservatively-aligned justices to the Supreme Court, the outcome of gun-related cases will most likely align with conservative ideology for the foreseeable future. Even though two assassination attempts were made on Trump in the past year, both of which with assault-style rifles, these events would seem to have little impact were Trump to be re-elected. According to Chris LaCivita, a senior advisor to the campaign, Trump will continue to support the Second Amendment, including through the appointment of federal judges opposed to new restrictions on the possession and usage of firearms. 

On the opposing side, Vice President Kamala Harris has called on all states to enact red-flag laws and has announced her support for restrictions on concealed carrying of firearms in schools. Additionally, she has been strongly opposed to legal immunity for gun manufacturers in lawsuits. When she worked as the attorney general for the state of California, she helped enact such a law in 2014, transforming California into one of the earliest states to implement this type of legislation. While these two candidates differ greatly in terms of their policies on other issues like economics, immigration, and criminal justice, the results of this election will also determine the executive’s policies on gun rights for the next four years, policies which have an incalculable impact on the lives and safety of everyone who lives in America. 

While 2024 is a landmark year in terms of gun cases decided by the Supreme Court, there are two primary steps voters can take to ensure that they are aware of the impact this year has had and will continue to have, on the future of their constitutional rights. The first of these is to educate themselves. The most fundamental aspect of better understanding and approaching an issue such as gun rights is to familiarize oneself with the history of the issue, the active legislation regarding it, and the relevant stances of those in office, as well as those on the ballot for the upcoming election. While this may seem tedious or unnecessary to some, it is of the utmost importance to know what rights and privileges are protected by the Constitution, as well as what the present and future of legislation may look like according to those in power. This article has shown how important changes in gun regulations are to the future safety and security of the United States. However, only 53% of Harris supporters and 59% of Trump supporters say that the issue of gun policy is “very important” in determining their vote for this election. Without further education and greater knowledge of this issue, citizens will not be aware of the differences in each candidate’s policy and therefore fail to understand a significant factor in this upcoming election. For more general information on each candidate’s policies, read this article, and for more information on the gun violence epidemic, read this report from Johns Hopkins University.

The second action that all citizens can take in shaping gun rights policy is to vote. Any given individual in the United States cannot simply enact a law or piece of policy on their own; the same is true for elected officials and members of the state and federal legislatures. It is only through being appointed to serve their country or community that these officials can influence change on policy. So, while only one state may have a concrete gun rights bill on the ballot in November, Americans can exercise their constitutional right to vote to help shape and implement leaders and policymakers that best fit their personal beliefs and political interests. 

As November’s election approaches, the United States yet again reaches a period of political uncertainty largely due to the partisan nature of modern political issues, gun rights included. There are a number of factors that will influence this election, and gun rights are only one of them. Remaining politically aware of who and what is on the ballot at the state and local levels is especially important in this extremely contentious, politically active year. Because the Second Amendment is a fundamental piece to American citizenship, history, and identity that is not going away, it is important for people to know their rights in order to keep themselves and others safe. For this reason, it is imperative that discussion surrounding gun rights must be more present at not only the federal level, but in state elections as well to ensure that the populace is protected, represented, and well-informed.