The divide over the Second Amendment and how it should be implemented is not a new debate in the political world. In the past few weeks, the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting has pulled in much attention from the public. Rittenhouse, a white, 18-year-old male, was recently acquitted on all charges in his trial over the shootings of three white men during a Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin in August 2020, which resulted in the death of two. He was 17 at the time, carrying around a rifle on the streets of Kenosha, claiming he was only there to protect businesses. Because of this claim, the debate over one’s right to bear arms became a focal point of the case.

Wisconsin is an open-carry state, meaning that it is legal for people, even without a permit, to carry around firearms in public. However, this does not apply to minors. America is largely divided on its opinions of the case and its outcome. To some, Rittenhouse’s case is an example of one’s right to bear arms, and the Constitution is meant to exist as is, with little room for leeway. To others, this is exactly why the Second Amendment is problematic, and tradition doesn’t mean it is OK. ​​​​There exists a debate over whether or not the Constitution is a living document, meaning that it should be interpreted over time rather than taken literally, in order to fit societal changes. However, originalists believe the Constitution should be precisely abided by word for word, interpreted within the context of the time when it was written. I argue that the Rittenhouse case points to a need for the Constitution to be treated as a living document.

American society has shown itself to be full of change, shifting and growing as time progresses. Since the establishment of the Constitution, the dangers and needs of society have drastically shifted. In light of that, it would be wrong to read the Constitution with a by-the-book attitude, for abiding by these traditional principles may not appropriately apply to a culture and a society that is always changing. The Second Amendment’s ratification occurred in the early stages of America in 1791, when there existed much more fear over the federal government potentially obtaining too much power. The Second Amendment formed out of this fear and the potential need for state militias to exercise protection against a stronger federal government. A letter to the editor of the LA Times reads, “But somehow this original intent has morphed from allowing you to keep a slow-loading musket in your closet just in case a quickly formed militia is needed, to permitting a 17-year-old with an assault rifle slung around his neck to strut about a volatile riot area and shoot people he perceives as a threat.” The dangers and needs of the world today are immensely different from those in 1791, and if the Second Amendment is now allowing more danger to ensue, which is directly opposite from its original intent, then how are we to not modify it? The Constitution should thus be treated as a living document, and I will further argue that the framers intended such treatment.

The framers of the Constitution were not empty-headed. They must have known that society would shift in ways not yet imaginable, for they were building a foundation for a country that they dreamt would live on. As such, I believe there is evidence that the framers made sure to write a Constitution that was worded in certain ways so as to ensure its relevance to future societies. Thomas Jefferson himself describes the Constitution as a living document. In fact, this quote of his is shown on his memorial in Washington, D.C.: “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed … institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.” Jefferson’s constitutional ideology highlights the importance of flexibility in our principles with the progress of our “human minds.” The fact that someone so vital to our country in its earlier years expressed such an opinion instills the proposition that America’s first leaders knew change would come. As Rittenhouse’s case proves, this clearly must apply to the Second Amendment. Asher Fried writes another letter to the editor of The New York Times, saying, “As the founders wisely framed the Second Amendment, dangerous weapons are meant to be in the hands of a ‘well regulated militia,’ not a teenager or self-appointed vigilantes.”

Our founder’s exact intentions may be debated, but the Constitution was written with malleable wording, broad enough for it to exist as a living document, thus rejecting originalist thinking. Without modifying the Amendment, people will continue to tout it in defense of gun violence like that of Rittenhouse, as proven by the National Rifle Association posting portions of the Second Amendment minutes after Rittenhouse was found not guilty on five counts. In America, abiding by the outdated verbatim of constitutional principles won’t correctly apply to a culture that has always, and will always, shift throughout time. The Kyle Rittenhouse case reinforces the flaws of by-the-book interpretations of the Constitution. The dangers within America, as well as the needs of America are simply different than they were in the 1790s.

Zoe Brusso is a sophomore majoring in philosophy, politics and law.