English precedent

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights 1689, which restricted
the right of the English Crown to interfere with the personal right to bear arms. The 1689 Bill of Rights restricted the right of the
monarch to have a standing army and to interfere with the personal right to bear arms. It did not create a new right to have arms, but
instead rescinded and deplored acts of the deposed King James II which extended the right to Catholics and Protestant dissenters in
addition to upholding prior legislation that limited the ownership of arms to certain social classes. The English Bill of Rights firmly
established that regulating the right to bear arms was one of the powers of Parliament, and did not belong to the monarch.
Sir William Blackstone wrote in the eighteenth century, at a time when there were no police or forces of law enforcement, about the
right to have arms being auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation", but conceded that the right was subject to
their suitability and allowance by law. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having
arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same
statute and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the
sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[35]
Civilian usage meaning
The right to keep and bear arms, which is protected under the second amendment,[36] is often presented in the context of military
service and the broader right of self defense. Whether this right pertains to individuals acting independently or the people acting
collectively has been the topic of several Supreme Court decisions. On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 5-4
decision, held that residents of the District of Columbia have an individual right to handguns for self-defense within the home in the
case District of Columbia v. Heller while at the same time reaffirming a broad range of federal restrictions on firearms as being
constitutional. Also, the large body of state based law regarding the right to firearms and restrictions on firearms remain largely
unchanged, though the Supreme Court ruled in the 2010 case McDonald v. Chicago that the right to keep and bear arms applies to
state governments via the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.[37] The people's right to have their own arms for their
defense is described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigs and
others.[38] Though possessing arms appears to be distinct from "bearing" them, the possession of arms is recognized as necessary for
and a logical precursor to the bearing of arms.[39] Don Kates, a civil liberties lawyer, cites historic English usage describing the "right to
keep and bear their private arms."[40] Likewise, Sayoko Blodgett-Ford notes a non-military usage of the phrase in pamphlet widely
circulated by the dissenting minority dating from the time of the Pennsylvania ratifying convention for the US Constitution:
"[T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or the purpose of killing
game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed..."[41]
In commentary written by Judge Garwood in United States v. Emerson, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit concluded in 2001 that:[42] there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of
arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or
'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting
that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service. SeeBliss v. Commonwealth, 13
Am. Dec. 251, 12 Ky. 90 (Ky.
Similarly, in a released Senate report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Senator Orrin Hatch, chairman, U.S. Senate Judiciary
Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, states: They argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a
right of the state" apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The "right
of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still
they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent
constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. "When our
ancestors forged a land "conceived in liberty", they did so with musket and rifle. When they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free
institutions, and established their identity as a free nation, they did so as a nation of armed freemen. When they sought to record
forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and
bear arms against governmental interference. Under my chairmanship the Subcommittee on the Constitution will concern itself with a
proper recognition of, and respect for, this right most valued by free men."[44] Likewise, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of
Columbia v. Heller (2008), No. 07-290, that "[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected
with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."[45]
[edit]Military service and civilian usage meanings
Some historians have argued that prior to and through the 18th century, the expression "bear arms" appeared exclusively in military
contexts, as opposed to the use of firearms by civilians.[46][47][48][49]
"In late-eighteenth-century parlance, bearing arms was a term of art with an obvious military and legal connotation. ... As a review of
the Library of Congress's data base of congressional proceedings in the revolutionary and early national periods reveals, the thirty uses
of 'bear arms' and 'bearing arms' in bills, statutes, and debates of the Continental, Confederation, and United States' Congresses
between 1774 and 1821 invariably occur in a context exclusively focused on the army or the militia."[46]
However, this conclusion is disputed and may be due to selection bias, which arises from the use of a limited selection of government
documents that overwhelmingly refer to matters of military service.[50] Commenting on this previous research, other historians note:
"Searching more comprehensive collections of English language works published before 1820 shows that there are a number of uses
that...have nothing to do with military service...[and] The common law was in agreement. Edward Christian's edition of Blackstone's
Commentaries that appeared in 1790s described the rights of Englishmen (which every American colonist had been promised) in these
terms 'everyone is at liberty to keep or carry a gun, if he does not use it for the [unlawful] destruction of game.' This right was separate
from militia duties."[50] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term to bear arms as: "to serve as a soldier, do military service,
fight," dating to about 1330. Garry Wills, author and history professor at Northwestern University, has written of the origin of the
term bear arms: "By legal and other channels, the Latin "arma ferre" entered deeply into the European language of war. Bearing arms
is such a synonym for waging war that Shakespeare can call a just war " 'justborne arms" and a civil war "self-borne arms." Even
outside the special phrase "bear arms," much of the noun's use echoes Latin phrases: to be under arms (sub armis), the call to arms
(ad arma), to follow arms (arma sequi), to take arms (arma capere), to lay down arms (arma pnere). "Arms" is a profession that one
brother chooses the way another choose law or the church. An issue undergoes the arbitrament of arms." ... "One does not bear arms
against a rabbit...".[51] Garry Wills also cites Greek and Latin etymology: "... "Bear Arms" refers to military service, which is why the
plural is used (based on Greek 'hopla pherein' and Latin 'arma ferre') one does not bear arm, or bear an arm. The word means,
etymologically, 'equipment' (from the root ar-* in verbs like 'ararisko', to fit out). It refers to the 'equipage' of war. Thus 'bear arms' can be
used of naval as well as artillery warfare, since the "profession of arms" refers to all military callings."[52]
Historically, the right to keep and bear arms, whether considered an individual or a collective or a militia right, did not originate fully
formed in the Bill of Rights in 1791; rather, the Second Amendment was the codification of the six-centuries-old responsibility to keep
and bear arms for king and country that was inherited from the English Colonists that settled North America, tracing its origin back to
the Assize of Arms of 1181 that occurred during the reign of Henry II. Through being codified in the United States Constitution, the
common law right was continued and guaranteed for the People, and statutory law enacted subsequently by Congress cannot
extinguish the pre-existing common law right to keep and bear arms.[53] This right is often presented in the United States as
synonymous with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Second Amendment to the United States
Constitution refers to a pre-existing right to keep and 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.[54] The right is often presented in the United States as being an
unenumerated, pre-existing right, such as provided for by the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution,[53] interpreted by
some as providing for unenumerated rights, and therefore implicitly a right to keep and bear arms:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Some have seen the Second Amendment as derivative of a common law right to keep and bear arms; Thomas B. McAffee & Michael J.
Quinlan, writing in the North Carolina Law Review, March 1997, Page 781, have stated "... Madison did not invent the right to keep and
bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendmentthe right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state
constitutions."[55] Akhil Reed Amar similarly notes the basis of Common Law for the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution,
"following John Randolph Tucker's famous oral argument in the 1887 Chicago anarchist case, Spies v. Illinois":
Though originally the first ten Amendments were adopted as limitations on Federal power, yet insofar as they secure and
recognize fundamental rights common law rights of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as
citizen of the United States...[56]
Uviller and Merkel hold that the right to bear arms was not reserved for the state, but rather was an individual and personal right for
arms only to the extent needed to maintain a well regulated militia to support the state. They also hold that a militia recognizable to the
framers of the Constitution has ceased to exist in the United States resulting from deliberate Congressional legislation and also societal
neglect; nonetheless, "Technically, all males aged seventeen to forty-five are members of the unorganized militia, but that status has no
practical legal significance."[42][49]
"From the text as well as a fair understanding of the contemporary ethic regarding arms and liberty, it seems to us overwhelmingly
evident that the principal purpose of the Amendment was to secure a personal, individual entitlement to the possession and use of
arms. We cannot, however, (as the individual rights contingent generally does) disregard entirely the first part of the text proclaiming a
well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state."[57]
"...we understand the Second Amendment as though it read: "Inasmuch as and so long as a well regulated Militia shall be necessary to
the security of a free state and so long as privately held arms shall be essential to the maintenance thereof, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "..to us, the language of the Amendment cannot support a right to personal weaponry
independent of the social value of a regulated organization of armed citizens.."[58]
[edit]Early commentary in state courts
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is a federal provision. Each of the fifty states also has its own state
constitution. Forty-four states have chosen to explicitly embody a right to bear arms into its state constitution.[61]
Approximately thirty-one states have explicitly chosen to include the right to arms for "individual right", "defense of self", "defense of
home" or similarly worded reasons. Approximately thirteen states, as with the U.S. Constitution, did not choose to explicitly include
"individual", "self" or "home" wording associated with a right to bear arms for their specific states.
Approximately twenty-eight states have explicitly chosen to include the right to bear arms for "security of a free state", "defense of
state", "common defense" or similarly worded reasons, as with the U.S. Constitution. Approximately sixteen states did not choose to
include explicitly "free state", "defense of state" or "common defense" wording for their specific state. Whether the inclusion of these
kinds of wording in state constitutions has relevance to the issue of whether implicit "individual" rights exist, or whether such rights (if
any) are implicitly protected by the states' constitutions or by the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, remains a matter of dispute.
Regarding the state interpretations of these state and the federal constitutional rights to bear arms, state courts have addressed the
meaning of these specific rights in considerable detail. Two different models have emerged from state jurisprudence: an individual right
and a collective right.
Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, KY)[62] addressed the right to bear arms pursuant to Art. 10, Sec. 23 of the Second Constitution
of Kentucky (1799):[63] "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." This
was interpreted to include the right to carry a concealed sword in a cane. This case has been described as about "a statute prohibiting
the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment."[64] Others, however, have seen no conflict with the
Second Amendment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statute under consideration in Bliss since "The Kentucky law was aimed at
concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered
the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws."[65]
The Kentucky High Court stated in Bliss, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the
constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be
impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the
constitution."[62] The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution.[44]
The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky
(1799) did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. The Bliss ruling, to the extent that it dealt with concealed weapons, was
overturned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of
concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and
collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of
Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of
themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed
weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980s, vol. 10, no.
1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held
that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique
because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."[66][67]
The importance of Bliss is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward,
who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in
class. Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky, and
former United States Attorney General. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that "a man has a right
to carry arms; I am aware of nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights
guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest
tribunal, the Court of Appeals." As noted by Cornell, "Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss and wrapped
their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted."[68]
In contrast, in State v. Buzzard (1842, Ark), the Arkansas high court adopted a militia-based, political right, reading of the right to bear
arms under state law, and upheld the 21st section of the second article of the Arkansas Constitution that declared, "that the free white
men of this State shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense",[69] while rejecting a challenge to a statute
prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. Buzzard had carried a concealed weapon and stood "indicted by virtue of the authority
of the 13th section of an act of the Legislature prohibiting any person wearing a pistol, dirk, large knife or sword-cane concealed as a
weapon, unless upon a journey, under the penalties of fine and imprisonment." Justice Lacy, in a dissenting opinion in Buzzard,
summarizing the majority viewpoint to which he disagreed, declared:
"That the words "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly
show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions [i.e., Ark. and U.S.] and prove that it is a political and not an individual right,
and, of course, that the State, in her legislative capacity, has the right to regulate and control it: This being the case, then the people,
neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms."[69]
Joel Prentiss Bishop's influential Commentaries on the Law of Statutory Crimes (1873) took Buzzard's militia-based interpretation, a
view that Bishop characterized as the "Arkansas doctrine", as the orthodox view of the right to bear arms in American law.[69][70]
Political scientist Earl Kruschke has categorized both Bliss and Buzzard as being "cases illustrating the individual
view."[71] Professor Eugene Volokh revealed, in the California Political Review, that a statement in a concurring opinion in Buzzard was
the only support for a collective right view of the right to keep and bear arms in the 19th century.[72]
In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court in Salina v. Blaksley[73] made the first collective right judicial interpretation.[74] The Kansas high
court declared: "That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other
military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution, which says: '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.'"
[edit]Modern commentary: three models
Further information: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Three models of interpreting the right to bear arms in the United States commonly exist. These three models are founded on differing
interpretations 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."
The first two models focus on the preamble, or "purpose" clause, of the Amendment the words "A well regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State." The first model, the collective model, holds that the right to bear arms belongs to the people
collectively rather than to individuals, because the right's only purpose is to enable states to maintain a militia. The second model, the
modified collective model, is similar to the first. It holds that the right to keep and bear arms exists only for individuals actively serving in
the militia, and then only pursuant to such regulations as may be prescribed.[75]
The third model, the individual-rights model, holds that a right of individuals is to own and possess firearms, much as the First
Amendment protects a right of individuals to engage in free speech.[75] This view was more strongly reflected by the Supreme Court
in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) than had previous interpretations by the Court. Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in Heller there
was a split among the federal courts, with nine of the federal circuit courts of appeal supporting a modified collective rights view, two of
the federal circuits supporting an individual rights view, and one federal circuit court having not addressed the question.[76]
Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia in 2008 wrote that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and is subject to reasonable prohibitions
and regulations and subsequently federal court rulings have upheld existing gun prohibitions and regulations.[77]
Nadine Strossen, President of the American Civil Liberties Union, has stated the argument that the Individual Rights model must yield
to reasonable regulation.[78] "Let's assume for the sake of argument it does protect an individual right," said Strossen, "it is no more
absolute than freedom of speech or any other right in the Constitution. No right is absolute; the government is always allowed to restrict
the right if it can satisfy Constitutional strict scrutiny and show the restriction is narrowly tailored to promote a goal of compelling
importance."[79]
At the state level, each of the fifty state constitutions, state laws, and state courts address the state-based right to bear arms distinctly
within their respective jurisdictions.[80]The degree and the nature of the protection, prohibition, and regulation at the state level varies
from state to state. The District of Columbia, not being a state, falls within the federal jurisdiction.
In the Nineteenth century, in the United States, considerable attention in public discourse and the courts was directed to the issue of
the risks of arming of slaves (prior to the Civil War), and later to the right of the Negro people to belong to militia and the arming of the
Negro people. Most famously this is seen in the court arguments of the court case Dred Scott v. Sandford, whether the slave Dred
Scott could be a citizen, with rights, including the right to bear arms. This debate about the rights of slaves and former slaves often
included the usage of the term 'bear arms' with the meaning of individual Negroes having or not having the right to possess firearms.
In October 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated:
"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional
provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear
arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage
'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."[81][82]
The Emerson decision was consistent with a view of Constitutional interpretation known by its principal advocates[83] as the "Standard
Model" view, and alternatively referred to as the "Individualist view".[60][84] There is some dispute whether the "individualist view"
predates the collective "militia view" in American jurisprudence. Some assert[who?] the "militia view" first appeared only in the early to mid
1990s.[85][86] A contrasting opinion asserts[who?] the militia view long predates the individualist view, with the individualist view dating back
to only 1960.[60][87][88]
In the late twentieth (20th) century, gun advocates argued[89] that the term 'keep and bear arms' means and has meant keeping and
bearing private arms for self-defense or hunting purposes. The 1986 TV film The Right of the People refers to this for self-defense
against crime.[90]
The Second Amendment of the United States has also been viewed by many private Americans, including those who are part of the
modern militia movement, as providing a means for resisting governmental tyranny. Those supporting the modern militia movement in
the United States have quoted the words of the founding fathers on websites and in publications. These quotes generally align not with
the Federalists, but rather with the Anti-Federalists, who opposed the ratification of the Constitution but were the driving force behind
the Bill of Rights.[91][92][better source needed]
[edit]The politics of the right to keep and bear arms
Main article: Gun politics
Interest groups, primarily in the United States, exert political pressure for and against legislation limiting the right to keep and bear
arms. This political debate in America is organized between those who seek stricter regulations and those who believe gun regulations
violate the Second Amendment protection of a right to keep and bear arms.[93]The largest advocacy group in this regard is the National
Rifle Association, and its political wing, the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. The NRA has been described as one of the largest and
most powerful political special interest group in the United States.[94] Several other groups including the Gun Owners of America and
the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, while smaller in size, are also politically active.[95] The main gun control
advocacy group is the Brady Campaign which has been described as considerably less effective than gun-rights organizations.[96]
US school shooting leaves 20 children dead

Children among 26 killed after gunman opens fire at primary school in state of Connecticut, police say.

Twenty-six people, including 20 children, have been killed after a shooting at a primary school in the US state of Connecticut, officials
say.
The shooting occurred at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, which is in the western part of Connecticut, on Friday
morning. The school had been evacuated and police had secured the scene, reported Al Jazeera's Cath Turner from the scene.
Church vigils are being held in Newtown, where residents and victims' families have gathered to pay their respects and mourn the
dead.
Lieutenant Paul Vance, spokesperson for the state police, confirmed the number of fatalities, adding that another adult had been killed
at a "secondary crime scene", which authorities said was the home of the shooter.
The gunman, said to be in his 20s, was also deceased, he said.
The gunman has not been formally identified by police.
The incident is the deadliest shooting at a primary or secondary school in US history, Al Jazeera's Alan Fisher reported from
Washington DC.
"A man walked into the school office and began shooting. He has been found dead, and there were two handguns by his side,"
reported Fisher. Three children were treated for their injuries at the local hospital in Danbury, with two of them succumbing to their
wounds. All of those killed at the school, the police said, were shot in two rooms.
A second suspect was arrested after a search operation by the police in a nearby wooded area, reported Al Jazeera's Turner.
The school superintendent's office said that all schools in the the district of Newtown, where the shooting took place, had been locked
down in order to ensure the safety of students and staff. Lieutenant Vance said that both state and local police had been deployed to
secure the site of the attack, and that site was now "secure".
'Sheer terror'
The local Newtown Bee newspaper posted a photo of a group of young students - some crying, others looking frightened - being
escorted by adults through a parking lot in a line, hands on each other's shoulders.
Stephen Delgiadice said his eight-year-old daughter heard two big bangs and teachers told her to get in a corner. His daughter was not
injured "It was horrendous," said parent Brenda Lebinski, who rushed to the school where her daughter is in the third grade.
"Everyone was in hysterics - parents, students. There were kids coming out of the school bloodied. I don't know if they were shot,
but they were bloodied."Mergim Bajraliu, 17, heard the gunshots echo from his home and raced to check on his nine-year-old
sister at the school. He said his sister, who was uninjured, heard a scream come over the intercom at one point. He said teachers
were shaking and crying as they came out of the building."Everyone was just traumatised," he said.
Richard Wilford said his seven-year-old son, Richie, said he heard a noise that "sounded like what he described as cans falling". The
boy told him a teacher went out to check on the noise, came back in, locked the door and had the kids huddle up in the corner until
police arrived.
"There's no words," Wilford said. "It's sheer terror, a sense of imminent danger, to get to your child and be there to protect him."
State police said Newtown police called them at about 9:40am local time (13:40 GMT) about the reports.
'Heinous crime'
American flags on Capitol Hill in Washington DC have been lowered to half-mast in the wake of the attack.

Gun control advocates gathered outside the White House as dusk fell on Friday, holding candles, praying and demanding action from
the US President.
visibly moved Barack Obama delivered a short address to the nation following the tragedy, expressing his condolences to the families
of the victims, saying that the US had seen "too many of these tragedies in the past few years".
"We're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the
politics," Obama said.
He said that the federal government was providing "every single resource that [the state government] needs to investigate this heinous
crime, care for the victims [and] counsel their families".
Newtown, with a population about 27,000, is in northern Fairfield County, about 72km southwest of Hartford and 129km northeast of
New York City.
Sandy Hook serves children in kindergarten through fourth grade, roughly ages five to 10. It is one of four elementary
schools in the district. The town also has a grade 5-6 school, a middle school and a high school.
The United States has experienced a number of mass shooting rampages this year, most recently in Oregon, where a gunman opened
fire at a shopping mall on Tuesday, killing two people and then himself.
The deadliest attack came in July at a midnight screening of a film in Colorado. Twelve people died in that attack.