The Impact of The Second Amendment on Gun Control Laws

Gun laws in American history were often racially biased, with the Second Amendment being written by a generation that implemented racist gun laws that prohibited Black people, whether free or enslaved, from possessing or carrying firearms.

Although the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, the founding generation that wrote it had implemented racist gun laws that restricted the possession or carrying of firearms by Black people. These laws were used to oppress Black people and ensure their subjugation to white people.

For instance, the 1825 Florida law allowed white people to enter Black people’s homes and take away their weapons. This law was one of many that targeted Black people and their ability to protect themselves against oppression and violence.

Furthermore, in the landmark Dred Scott v. Sandford case, Chief Justice Roger Taney argued that Black people could not be citizens under the Constitution because it would give them the right to carry arms.

This argument highlights how the right to bear arms was perceived as a white privilege, and Black people were not granted the same right.

Even after the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, the Black Codes were enacted in the South to restrict the rights of Black people. These codes included making it illegal for Black people to own guns, thus leaving them vulnerable to violence and oppression by white people.

The excerpt also mentions Martin Luther King Jr. being denied a concealed carry permit, even after his house was firebombed. This example illustrates how gun control laws were used to restrict the rights of people of colour, even when they needed protection.

Adding on the aforesaid further, the excerpt sheds light on the ugly taint of racism in gun laws throughout American history. These laws were used to oppress and subjugate Black people, restrict their rights, and maintain the status quo of white supremacy.

It is essential to acknowledge this historical bias and work towards creating gun laws that are fair, equitable, and do not discriminate based on race or ethnicity.

The racist history of gun laws has several implications for how we interpret and apply the Second Amendment.

Firstly, it complicates the emerging Second Amendment test that seeks to determine the scope of the amendment by examining “text, history, and tradition.”

This test looks for historical precedents to identify whether current gun laws are permissible, but some of these precedents were motivated by racism or reflected racist attitudes.

This means that courts must carefully consider the historical context of gun laws and their impact on different racial groups when determining the scope of the Second Amendment.

Secondly, the history of racist gun laws may lead some to argue that courts should be inherently suspicious of any gun laws. However, this argument is problematic, and there are valid reasons for courts to reject such skepticism.

Gun laws can serve important public safety interests, and it is possible to design laws that are effective without being discriminatory.

Thirdly, the history of racist gun laws calls for greater attention to the racially disproportionate impact of current gun laws. While constitutional doctrine does not empower judges to strike down laws solely for a racially disparate impact, legislators and activists should be aware of it in shaping legislation or reform to minimize the racial skew.

This requires a deeper understanding of how gun laws have historically affected different racial groups and a commitment to designing laws that are equitable and non-discriminatory.

Speaking in a general sense, the racist history of gun laws highlights the need for a nuanced and contextual approach to interpreting and applying the Second Amendment. It also underscores the importance of addressing the racial disparities that persist in current gun laws and working towards greater equity and inclusion in the design of future laws.

1. Definition of The Second Amendment

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.

In the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, the United States Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes, such as self-defence, and that this right is not limited to service in a militia.

The case involved a challenge to a District of Columbia law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, and the Court struck down the law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The decision was significant because it marked the first time that the Supreme Court had definitively interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to own guns, rather than a collective right belonging to militias.

The language used in the aforementioned amendment has been the subject of considerable debate and interpretation. Some argue that the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” creates an individual right to possess firearms and restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at least renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. This is known as the “individual right theory” of the Second Amendment.

However, others point to the prefatory language “a well-regulated Militia” to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state’s right to self-defence, rather than create an individual right to bear arms. This is known as the “collective rights theory” of the Second Amendment.

Those who subscribe to the collective rights theory assert that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies, therefore, possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

This has been a topic of intense legal and political debate, and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment has evolved over time.

As mentioned previously, the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 marked the first time that the Court definitively interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to own guns. However, the scope of that right continues to be a subject of ongoing interpretation and debate.

Diving deeper into understanding the concept under the aforesaid, in the 1939 case United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court adopted a collective rights approach to the Second Amendment.

The case involved the National Firearms Act of 1934, which regulated the interstate transport of certain firearms, including sawed-off shotguns. The defendants in the case argued that the National Firearms Act violated their Second Amendment rights, but the Supreme Court disagreed.

The Court held that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to own any type of weapon, but rather only those weapons that have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” The Court also explained that the Second Amendment was included in the Constitution to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

It’s important to note that the Miller decision did not definitively settle the question of whether the Second Amendment protects an individual or collective right to bear arms.

The case has been criticized for its lack of thorough analysis and the fact that the defendants did not appear in court to argue their case. However, the Miller decision has been influential in shaping subsequent legal and political debates over gun control and the Second Amendment.

1.1 Case Laws Pertaining to the Impact of The Second Amendment

1.1.1 District of Columbia v. Heller

For almost 70 years, a precedent stood regarding the interpretation of the Second Amendment, which protects the right to bear arms in the United States.

However, in 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court revisited this issue in a case called District of Columbia v. Heller. The plaintiff, in this case, challenged a law in Washington D.C. that prohibited the possession of handguns.

In a narrow 5-4 decision, the Court struck down the D.C. handgun ban as a violation of the Second Amendment, establishing an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms.

The Court went to great lengths to explore the history and tradition of the Second Amendment during the time of the Constitutional Convention, concluding that it was meant to protect an individual right to possess firearms.

The Court also made it clear that its previous decision in the case of United States v. Miller, which held that sawed-off shotguns were not protected under the Second Amendment, was an exception to the general rule that Americans have a right to possess firearms.

The Court stated that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose, which is why they are not protected under the Second Amendment.

Additionally, the Court suggested that the Second Amendment does not prevent the government from enacting regulations that prohibit criminals and the mentally ill from possessing firearms.

In a nutshell, the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller established an individual right to possess firearms in the United States, but it also made it clear that this right is not absolute and can be subject to regulation in certain circumstances.

1.1.2 McDonald v. City of Chicago

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court further strengthened Second Amendment protections in a case called McDonald v. City of Chicago. The plaintiff, in this case, challenged the constitutionality of a handgun ban in Chicago that prohibited almost all private citizens from owning handguns.

Once again, the Court ruled in a 5-4 decision, with the majority holding that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. This means that the states are bound by the same restrictions on their power to regulate firearms as the federal government.

The Court did not agree on which specific clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defence.

Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, while Justice Thomas, in his concurrence, argued that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.

The Due Process Clause protects individuals from being deprived of their life, liberty, or property without due process of law, while the Privileges and Immunities Clause protects citizens of one state from being discriminated against in other states.

Adding onto the aforementioned, the McDonald decision solidified the individual right to possess firearms for self-defence and applied it to the states, prohibiting them from infringing on this right.

It also highlighted the ongoing debate over which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should be used to incorporate the Second Amendment’s protections.

Despite the Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald, several questions regarding Second Amendment protections remain unanswered. For instance, it is unclear whether regulations that are less stringent than the D.C. handgun ban still implicate the Second Amendment.

Additionally, lower courts are left to determine how to apply the Supreme Court’s dicta regarding permissible restrictions on firearms. Finally, it is uncertain which level of scrutiny courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.

In constitutional law, courts generally apply one of three levels of scrutiny, depending on the issue at hand: strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or rational basis. Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous standard of review and requires that a law be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

Intermediate scrutiny requires that a law be substantially related to an important government interest. Rational basis is the most deferential standard and requires only that a law be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

The level of scrutiny applied in Second Amendment cases has been a subject of debate, and courts have applied different levels of scrutiny depending on the case and the jurisdiction. Some courts have applied intermediate scrutiny, while others have applied something closer to rational basis review.

The Supreme Court has not yet established a clear standard for evaluating Second Amendment claims, leaving lower courts to determine the appropriate level of scrutiny on a case-by-case basis. As a result, the application of Second Amendment protections continues to be a complex and evolving area of law.

1.2 The Views Upheld by the Circuit Courts Post the Heller Case

1.2.1. US v Dorosan

In US v Dorosan, the defendant was convicted for bringing a handgun onto post office property in violation of federal regulations prohibiting weapons on government property. The defendant argued that these regulations infringed on his Second Amendment rights to possess a firearm, but the court upheld his conviction.

The court reasoned that the regulations were a reasonable restriction on the defendant’s Second Amendment rights because they were designed to protect public safety and prevent violence on government property.

The court also noted that the regulations did not completely prohibit the defendant from owning or possessing a firearm, but only restricted where he could carry it.

The Dorosan case illustrates how the government may regulate the possession of firearms on its own property without necessarily infringing on individuals’ Second Amendment rights.

It also shows that courts may uphold such regulations as long as they are reasonable and narrowly tailored to serve an important government interest, such as public safety.

1.2.2 US v Rene E

The court reasoned that the Juvenile Delinquency Act was a reasonable restriction on the defendant’s Second Amendment rights because it was designed to promote public safety and prevent gun violence.

The court noted that juveniles are more likely than adults to engage in impulsive and dangerous behaviour and that restricting their access to firearms was an important means of preventing such behaviour.

The US v Rene E case illustrates how the government may regulate the possession of firearms by certain groups, such as juvenile delinquents, without necessarily infringing on individuals’ Second Amendment rights.

It also shows that courts may uphold such regulations as long as they are reasonable and narrowly tailored to serve an important government interest, such as public safety.

1.2.3 Kachalsky v County of Westchester

In Kachalsky v County of Westchester, the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of a New York law that required individuals to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public.

The law also required applicants to show “proper cause” for carrying a concealed firearm, which was defined as a special need for self-defence that distinguished the applicant from the general public.

The plaintiffs argued that the law violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms, but the court held that the law was constitutional and did not infringe on their rights.

The court reasoned that the government had a compelling interest in regulating the carrying of firearms in public to promote public safety and that the “proper cause” requirement was a reasonable restriction on the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights.

The court also noted that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to carry a concealed firearm in public for general purposes, but only protects the right to bear arms for self-defence in the home. The court, therefore, concluded that the New York law did not violate the plaintiff’s Second Amendment rights.

To further elaborate, the Court’s decision in Bruen clarified that the Second Amendment’s protections extend beyond the home and include the right to carry firearms for self-defence in public.

 The Court also rejected New York’s argument that its licensing scheme was necessary to protect public safety, stating that it did not provide any evidence to support the contention that law-abiding citizens who are denied public carry licenses pose a threat to public safety.

The Court emphasized that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right that cannot be subject to arbitrary and discriminatory restrictions by state officials.

The Court’s rejection of the means-end test has significant implications for future Second Amendment cases. Previously, many lower courts had applied intermediate scrutiny or some variation of a means-end test to evaluate the constitutionality of gun regulations.

Under this approach, courts would consider whether the government had a legitimate interest in regulating firearms and whether the regulation was reasonably related to that interest.

However, the Court’s ruling in Bruen suggests that this approach is no longer appropriate. Instead, courts must engage in more historical analysis to determine the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections and whether a particular regulation falls within the outer bounds of those protections.

Assisting on the idea aforementioned deeper, the Court’s decision in Bruen represents a significant development in Second Amendment jurisprudence, clarifying the scope of the right to bear arms and rejecting the use of means-end tests to evaluate gun regulations.

The ruling is likely to have significant implications for future Second Amendment cases and may result in increased scrutiny of gun regulations by lower courts.

The Kachalsky case illustrates how the government may regulate the carrying of firearms in public, including requiring permits and showing “proper cause,” without necessarily infringing on individuals’ Second Amendment rights.

It also shows that courts may uphold such regulations as long as they are reasonable and narrowly tailored to serve an important government interest, such as public safety.

1.2.4 Caetano v. Massachusetts

Complementing the aforementioned concept, in Caetano v. Massachusetts, the plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of a state law that prohibited the possession or use of stun guns, claiming that it violated her Second Amendment rights.

The state argued that stun guns were not protected by the Second Amendment because they were not in common use at the time of the framing of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favour of the plaintiff, holding that stun guns are protected under the Second Amendment. The Court emphasized that the Second Amendment extends to all bearable arms, including those not in existence at the time of the Constitution’s adoption, and rejected the state’s argument that stun guns were not in common use.

The Court’s decision in Caetano reinforced the individual right to bear arms established in Heller and clarified that this right extends to a wide range of weapons, including those that were not available at the time the Second Amendment was adopted.

However, the Court’s opinion was per curia, meaning that it was issued by the Court as a whole without an identified author and did not significantly add to Second Amendment jurisprudence beyond what was established in Heller.

1.2.5 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen

In the aforesaid case, the decision and its significance in Second Amendment jurisprudence mark its essentiality in a nutshell.

The central issue in Bruen was whether a New York state law that required individuals seeking to purchase a handgun for self-defence outside of the home to obtain a license on a “may issue” basis, which means that authorities have the discretion to deny the license, violated the Second Amendment.

The New York law allowed authorities to deny a license to individuals who were unable to show “proper cause” for needing a firearm for self-defence, which the plaintiffs argued was too vague and arbitrary and gave too much discretion to the government officials to deny the exercise of their Second Amendment rights.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the New York law was unconstitutional because it imposed too many restrictions on the individual right to bear arms, and the discretion given to authorities in the licensing process violated the Second Amendment.

The Court found that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms for self-defence, not only inside the home, but also outside, and that this right cannot be arbitrarily restricted by the government.

The Court also clarified the level of scrutiny that should be applied in Second Amendment challenges to firearm regulations. It held that regulations that burden the right to bear arms must be subjected to strict scrutiny, which is the most rigorous form of judicial review, requiring the government to show a compelling state interest and narrowly tailored means to achieve that interest.

The Bruen decision reaffirms the individual right to bear arms for self-defence and sets a high bar for states and local governments seeking to regulate firearms.

It also provides more clarity on the level of scrutiny that courts should apply when analyzing Second Amendment challenges, indicating that courts should be highly skeptical of any law that burdens the right to bear arms.

2. The Judgment of the Supreme Court on its First Gun Control Issue

The 1875 Supreme Court case of United States v. Cruikshank arose from a violent dispute in Louisiana over the outcome of the 1872 gubernatorial election, in which more than 100 Blacks were killed.

The federal government charged some white vigilantes with violating an 1870 statute that made it illegal to conspire to deprive anyone of their constitutional rights.

One of the charges was that the defendants had taken away the arms with which the Blacks were defending themselves. However, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, released the vigilantes, stating that the constitutional limitations on seizing guns do not apply to individuals’ actions.

In addition, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not grant individuals the right to own firearms; rather, it only restricted the national government’s power to take away their guns.

Chief Justice Morrison Waite’s opinion declared that the Second Amendment “means no more than it shall not be infringed by Congress.

This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.” Therefore, the Court held that the Second Amendment did not apply to state or local governments and that it did not guarantee an individual right to own a firearm.

The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Cruikshank held that the Second Amendment was only a limitation on federal power, not on the power of state or local governments to regulate firearms.

Therefore, state and local governments could still regulate firearms as they saw fit, as long as those regulations did not violate other constitutional provisions.

2.1 The Ruling of the Supreme Court

In the case of Presser v. Illinois, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the position taken in United States v. Cruikshank that the Second Amendment only limited the power of the national government and not the states.

The case involved Herman Presser, who led a group of Chicago workers of German background organized to counter the armed private guard squads formed by local employers.

Presser and around 400 members of the group marched through Chicago streets carrying rifles, which violated a state statute against any private militia not licensed by the governor.

Presser argued that his Second Amendment right to bear arms was being infringed upon, but the Supreme Court disagreed.

Justice William B. Woods wrote in the opinion that the Second Amendment only applied to the federal government and did not limit the power of states to regulate firearms.

In his words, verbatim, as re-emphasizing the Cruikshank case, says in the aforesaid issue: “The amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.”

This decision reinforced the idea that states have the power to regulate firearms within their borders, subject to the limits imposed by the U.S. Constitution.

2.2 The Creation of Stringent Gun Control Laws

After the Cruikshank and Presser decisions, state legislatures started enacting more firearms regulations without fear of violating the Second Amendment. For instance, many states prohibited carrying firearms in certain public places or events, such as bars or schools.

Some states also restricted firearm possession by minors or convicted felons. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Presser v. Illinois reinforced the notion that the Second Amendment did not restrict the states from regulating firearms, and therefore, the state laws passed in this era were not challenged at the Supreme Court.

One example of such state legislation was Wyoming’s 1876 law, which prohibited the carrying of concealed weapons without a permit and banned the possession of firearms altogether in towns or cities.

The law was upheld in the Wyoming Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Aymar v. State in the year 1895, which held that the right to bear arms was not absolute and that it could be restricted for public safety reasons.

This ruling set a precedent for other states to follow, and by the turn of the century, many states had enacted similar laws.

2.3 The Effect of Gangland Brutality on Federal Gun Control

The United States v. Miller case of 1939 was the first time the Supreme Court addressed a Second Amendment challenge to a federal gun control law.

The law in question was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which imposed a $200 tax on certain firearms, including sawed-off shotguns, and required their registration. Two men were charged with violating this law by transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas.

The defendants argued that the National Firearms Act violated their Second Amendment rights to bear arms.

However, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the law, finding that the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms was not absolute and that it only applied to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.

The Court stated that the Second Amendment did not protect the possession of any weapon and that a sawed-off shotgun was not a type of firearm that was commonly used by militias.

The decision in United States v. Miller reinforced the notion that the Second Amendment did not provide an absolute right to bear arms and that government regulation of firearms was permissible.

This decision, along with previous rulings, set the stage for the evolving interpretation of the Second Amendment and its relationship with government regulation of firearms.

2.4 The Modern Gun Control Rules by the Supreme Court

To dive deeper into understanding the concept of gun control laws, it is essential to look at the case law that brought the same to light. The issue of United States v. Lopez was a significant case in the history of gun rights as it marked the first time the Supreme Court struck down a firearms control law, even though the Second Amendment was not at issue.

The case concerned a federal law that prohibited the possession of firearms in school zones, and the Court held that the law was invalid because it exceeded Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

The Court’s 5-4 decision in Lopez was significant because it signalled a shift in the Court’s approach to gun control laws.

While previous Second Amendment cases had upheld firearms regulations, Lopez indicated that there might be limits to what Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause and that the Court might be willing to scrutinize gun control laws more closely.

This was seen as a victory by gun rights advocates, who had long argued that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms.

3. The Declining Ownership and its Effect on Homicides

The decline in gun ownership and the shift in reasons for owning guns are reflective of changes in American society and culture. The decrease in hunting as a reason for owning guns may reflect a decline in interest in this activity or a shift towards other forms of recreation.

The rise in personal protection as a reason for owning guns may reflect an increasing sense of insecurity among Americans, driven by factors such as high-profile incidents of mass shootings, political polarization, and a perceived breakdown in the social order.

The decline in the homicide rate from firearms is a positive trend that suggests that previous efforts at gun control may have had an impact. However, it is important to note that the United States still has a higher rate of gun-related homicides than most other developed countries.

Moreover, the focus on mass shootings may be misleading, as these incidents account for a relatively small proportion of gun-related deaths in the United States.

The public’s perception of crime, as well as the influence of interest groups and political ideology, play a significant role in shaping gun policy.

There is often a disconnect between the facts about gun violence and public opinion, with many Americans overestimating the risk of gun violence and supporting policies that may not be effective in reducing it.

The role of guns in American culture, as well as the political power of the gun lobby, make meaningful gun control reforms a challenging proposition.

4. The General and Varied Opinions of the Public

Public opinion in the United States has been divided on the issue of gun control for many years. While there has been a long-standing trend toward support for stricter gun control measures, this has been matched by an increase in support for gun rights.

This polarization has been driven by a range of factors, including the increasing politicization of the issue, the influence of interest groups, and the ongoing debate around gun-related violence.

Despite this polarization, there are several areas of gun regulation that have broad public support.

For example, large majorities of Americans are in favour of measures such as background checks for those with criminal records, limiting access for the mentally ill, and creating a national database to track gun sales.

These sorts of regulations are seen as common-sense measures to help reduce gun-related violence while preserving the rights of responsible gun owners.

However, some gun control measures are more controversial, such as bans on assault rifles like the AR-15. These types of weapons were banned in 1994 under the Clinton administration, but the law was allowed to lapse in 2004 and has not been reinstated by the current Congress.

While many gun control advocates see bans on assault weapons as necessary to reduce mass shootings, others argue that these weapons are necessary for self-defence and that bans would be ineffective in preventing violence.

This controversy has made it difficult for lawmakers to agree on new gun control measures.

5. Highlighting the Concept of Party Lines

The issue of gun control in the US has become increasingly polarized along political party lines, with Democrats generally supporting stricter gun control measures and Republicans advocating for less regulation. This divide is reflected in the views of the general public, with support for gun control roughly matching support for gun rights.

While there is broad support for measures such as background checks for gun purchases and limiting access to firearms for those with criminal records or mental illness, more controversial issues such as bans on assault rifles are often the subject of heated debate.

Republican politicians are generally less likely to support these measures, while Democrats are more likely to advocate for them.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is a powerful lobbying group that advocates for gun rights, and its endorsement is highly coveted by politicians.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump accepted the NRA’s endorsement and accused his opponent Hillary Clinton of wanting to take away Americans’ guns.

Despite Clinton’s calls for stronger gun control measures, neither party has made significant efforts to enact major gun control legislation due to the potential backlash from gun enthusiasts.

In recent years, there has been a trend towards making guns more, rather than less, available. Many states have adopted laws allowing for the carrying of concealed weapons, with the argument being that “good guys with guns” can stop “bad guys with guns“.

However, there is debate over whether this approach actually makes the public safer or puts them at greater risk.

Mass shootings, such as those at Sandy Hook Elementary School and the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, continue to occur with dispiriting regularity, leaving hundreds of families to mourn their loved ones.

Conclusion

From numerous debates regarding whether possessing ammunition legally is authorized or not to having various statutes created to look over its working in general, the gun control laws, stated as per the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, serve to be highly essential.

Be it comprehending the concept of the Second Amendment or the Public’s opinion on the aforesaid laws, the Second Amendment enshrines the essence of ammunitions and its effect on the general crowd.