Gun Control: Infringement on the 2nd Amendment - Research Paper Example

Gun Control: Infringement on the 2nd Amendment? Gun Control: Infringement on the 2nd Amendment? IntroductionThe current wave of gun violence in the United States has led to an increased gun control debate in the country as different human rights organizations advocate for stronger gun control laws. Different countries across the world have independent strict gun control laws but the United States have continued to adopt a liberal approach to the issue. As compared to the United Kingdom that has strict gun control laws, the United Kingdom has allowed the states to enact laws which vary on the issue of gun possession and use (Alters, 2011). The increased confusion on the gun control progress has been attributed to the different interpretation of the 2nd amendment by the judiciary led by the Supreme Court. A number of Supreme Court rulings have strengthen this position of the second amendment and confirmed that this right protects individual and not militia rights to bear and use guns in the country. The incorporation of the bills of right has infringed on the ability of the state and local governments to suspend the provision of the second amendment as a way of promoting gun control in the country (McGovern, 2012). With the increase wave of violence in the United States, different groups have argued that the provisions of the second amendment have affected the ability of the government to curtail gun use in the country. In this paper, the impact of the second amendment on the gun control approaches in the country will be discussed, providing an overview of how this provision of the United States constitution has promoted gun ownership and control in the country (McGovern, 2012). History of gun control in the US This issue has existed in different countries and the approaches adopted by the governments have changed with the changing within the united states. During the slave error in the United States, slaves were not allowed to own and carry guns in the country though the second amendment was in place by then. Following the abolition of slavery in the country, the black code laws were established which restricted black people in the country from owning guns. However, the enactment of the civil rights act by the congress in 1986 overrode a number of provisions within the black code act and this allowed blacks to own guns in the country (Alters, 2011). However, a number of laws were established especially within the southern states which decreased the accessibility to cheap guns in within the states. The desire to control gun use in the United States gained momentum in the 20th century when the congress passed a law in 1927 that prohibited the mailing of concealable firearms. The control and regulation of automatic guns and rifles was also done in 1934 when the national firearm act was passed, an act that imposed stricter regulations on those who sold guns (McGovern, 2012). Every business entity dealing with guns and firearms must obtain a $1 license and a record of all guns sold which were to be submitted to the regulatory authority. The enactment of the federal firearms act introduced new restrictions and led to the age limit on those who were viable to purchase and own guns in the country. Before obtaining a gun, the age, mental stability, criminal record, drug abuse history and citizenship must be provided and ascertained by the seller. The violent crime control and law enforcement act of 1994 further increased the restriction on gun possession, purchase and use, a law that was attributed to decreased gun violence in the country (Alters, 2011). The second amendment and gun control efforts Despite the progress that has been made by the federal government, states and local governments, the overriding provisions of the second government have infringed on the gun controls effort. Different interpretations of the second amendment have been attributed to the confusion which has marred the gun control efforts in the country. During the time of the enactment of the second amendment, the foundation generation lacked enough trust on the ability of the army to protect their lives and properties. Most of the citizens also adopted the long English tradition that governments controlled by the minority continue to use guns as ways of controlling and oppressing the majority in the country. With such fears in mind, the government was allowed to use militias consisting of ordinary people with limited military training and experience to protect the territorial boundaries of the country. This led to the enactment of the second amendment which granted the militias the right to hold and use guns, a right that was extended to the citizens as a way of protection according to some interpreters like Senator Paul rand of the tea party (Barrett, 2013). Following the Sandy Hook tragedy, president Obama announced that there was need for the congress to enact stricter gun control laws in the country. Though his policies like health and educational policies have received widespread support, this announcement was received coldly by most people especially the republicans and the tea party members. This group of politicians argues that the second amendment protects the rights of the citizens to own and use guns for protection. This argument is believed to represent the historical tradition of the United States any move to restrict it may infringe on their rights and liberties as provided by the second amendment (Barrett, 2013). In 2008, the United States Supreme Court held that this amendment Was essential in the protection of the right of law abiding and responsible American citizens to own guns. This judgment however acknowledged that laws which have been enacted by the federal and state governments on gun use restriction remain viable and permissible, a statement that increased the confusion and protracted the gun control debate. Gun control infringes on the second amendment Our founding fathers and the framers of the constitutions were supportive of widespread gun ownership in the country and this was demonstrated by their second amendment of the constitution. This was believed as the only way the citizens could gun up to control themselves against a despotic government that violated the rights of the people. This notion is believed to have been derived from the arguments of old time philosophers like Machiavelli, Baccarat, Aristotle and Plato. According to Patrick henry, the liberties enjoyed by citizens in a free state must be guided by all ways possible, including the use of force supported by armed conflicts and militias (Barrett, 2013). According to the model constitution developed by Thomas Jefferson in Virginia, no freeman should be debarred from the use and ownership of gun to protect the integrity of his land and tenements. John Adams replicated the arguments of Jefferson when he argued that the arms found among the citizens must be used at individual discretion for the purpose of private defense. Though the interpretation of the second amendment has been subjected to manipulative arguments, the framers according to Coxe, a pioneer interpreter of the amendment intended to protect the right of the people to bear private arms (Doherty, 2008). According to gun control proponents, the mention of militias in this amendment stresses the fact that the law is only applicable to organized militias such the National Guard. Though the framers of the constitution intended to protect the country against external aggressive invasion, the militias were not organized state employees. In his response, president Obama first pronounces his belief in the second amendment of the United States constitution. This was a response to whether he was still willing to reduce the number of illegal guns in the streets. In responding to this question, the president first expresses the belief that the country, him included, has on the second amendment. A decision to implement, enforce and protect the second amendment cannot in any way achieve the response that the president gave. Different forms of gun controls have been established and these have clearly demonstrated the extent to which such process infringes on the provisions of the second amendment. The use of gun registration as a method of regulating the illegal use of guns in the country has been subjected to varying interpretations. Though the registration of guns enable the government monitor the use of guns and enables the judicial process to punish the gun offenders, its benefits are limited in the current context. Through gun registration, the crimes committed by the same gun can be discovered but the criminal cannot be traced in the event that the gun was stolen from the rightful owner. Guns are constitutionally protected and this makes it illegal for the government to require citizens to registered protected objects. This is more so now that the benefits of registration are trivial and cannot eliminate the gun crime in the country. According to the first amendment, the government cannot force the citizens to register the magazines and newspapers in their possession even if the same have damaging propaganda on the government. This same principle was extended to gun possession and use in the country by the enactment of the second amendment (Esposito & Finley, 2014). Just with the motor vehicle analogy used with gun registration, the licensing of guns has been associated with the increased need to monitor and control the use of guns in the country. Licensing invokes the power of the police in determining who uses guns and this according to a recent poll, is opposed by over 69% of Americans. In most cases, permits have been granted not to those who are exposed to more risks but those who move along well with the police. In St Louis for example, there exist laws which denies homosexuals, nonvoters and single women access to guns. In most cases, the police have been accused of propagating racism by denying certain races and religious groups gun licenses (Doherty, 2008). This is against the second amendment and other amendments in the United States that protect the rights of the citizens and abolish discrimination based on race, religion, sex and even marital status. In New York for example, taxi drivers have been exposed to repeated forms of gun robbery and violence yet the police have repeatedly denied them gun licenses because they carry less than $2,000 at any given time. By raising the licensing process as a way of keeping the guns out of the hands of the poor, the licensing process in the country has failed to meet the objective highlighted in the second amendment (DiMauro, 2013). For example, Dade County in Florida charged over $500 for a gun license while the county of Monroe charged over $2,000 as a way of restricting the access of the poor to the guns. Licensing has thus been used as a silent prohibition against gun ownership against the provisions developed by the framers in the second amendment. In his earlier election promise, the president made it clear that eliminating the flow of illegal AK47 guns will be his top priority. In responding to the same question however, the president uses clearly abstract words that fail to indicate his clear desires (Baldrige, 2009). The response from the president can elicit more questions than answers due to the political ambiguity that he employs in his response. How is the strict enforcement and implementation of the second amendment going to reduce illegal guns in the streets? The president’s assertion on his belief on this amendment fails to answer the question. How will the continued respect for the tradition of hunting and gun sporting help regulate inflow of illegal arms (Lott, 2013)? Can the flow of guns be controlled by introducing a ban on assault weapons? The enforcement of gun control laws in our country should be strictly done in order to ensure the protection of citizens from criminals. In doing this, some provisions of the second amendments should be revised to introduce stricter penalties for those found in possession of illegal firearms. The president’s response does give me a clear intention of eradicating or controlling the outflow of guns. It does not clearly state how he will ensure that gun control is implemented and finally achieved (Doherty, 2008). The interpretation of the second amendment and how the gun control measures violate its provision has been done by a number of cases before the common courts by more so the Supreme Court. The meaning of the second amendment was made by the Supreme Court in case of District of Columbia v Heller in which the court confirmed that the amendment affirms an individual’s right to hold a gun for self-protection. The application of this amendment was also made in the Supreme Court case of McDonald v Chicago in which the Supreme Court confirmed that the amendment covers every state and locality and not just restricted to the enclaves of Washington (Whitney, 2012). The mantra of more guns, more deaths and more violence and few guns translates to reduced crime wave in the country has been used by the proponents of the gun control debate. This mantra is filled with misconception and factual error that seeks to compare data that has not been subjected to scientific review and determination. In some publications, the second amendment which allows free access to guns by the citizens has been attributed to the high wave of violence in the country. Countries with strong anti-gun laws have recorded high crime and murder rates as compared to those that don’t like the United States (Lott, 2013). In Europe, the nine countries with strong gun control laws have continued to top in their murder and crime rate, a value that is three times higher than the recorded crime in countries like the United States. Norway is the only country in Europe with the highest rate of gun ownership but records the lowest crime rate when compared to countries like the United Kingdom. Netherlands has the worst crime and murder level compared to other countries in Europe despite having the strongest anti-gun possession and ownership laws in Europe. Based on these findings, adopting the gun control acts violates and infringes on the second amendment on a number of ways (Doherty, 2008). By limiting access to guns for personal and home protection as provided for by the second amendment, Americans have been subjected to the hostility of gun trotting criminals without any form of protection. Lack of government protection is a violation of the United States constitution but denying the citizens the right to protect themselves from invasion and criminal activities infringes on their bill of rights. By taking away the guns from the people, most citizens have been denied the opportunity to protect themselves and their children against criminals and psychopaths (Whitney, 2012). Conclusion The second amendment was established by the framers as a way of protecting the citizens against the tyrannical actions of the government and empowering citizen owned militias to protect the country in case of an external aggression. As a result, the amendment made it legal for Americans of right mental status, no criminal record and with a viable reason to possess and carry guns for personal protection. This has been attributed to a decrease in criminal activities in the country as citizens are empowered to protect their property and lives against criminals. However, the current wave of gun violence have turned the heat on this amendment as gun control proponents advocate for a stricter gun policy that will affect the ability of citizens to own guns (O’Brien, Forrest, Lynott & Daly, 2013). These arguments border on reasons that contravene and infringe on the provisions of the second amendment. By imposing regulations on gun ownership, the ability of the citizens to protect themselves will be hampered and this will expose them to criminals. The basis of gun control measures and laws enacted therefore directly violates the tenets of the second amendment and makes the citizens more vulnerable to violence and crime. References Alters, S. M. (2011). Gun control: Restricting rights or protecting people? Information Plus. Baldrige, P. D. (2009). Gun Ownership and the Second Amendment. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Barrett, P. M. (2013). Why Gun Control Is Basically Dead. Businessweek.Com, 16. DiMauro, L. (2013). Gun control: restricting rights or protecting people? / Laurie DiMauro. Detroit: Gale Cengage Learning. Doherty, B. (2008). Gun control on trial: Inside the Supreme Court battle over the second amendment. Washington, D.C: Cato Institute. Esposito, L., & Finley, L. L. (2014). Beyond Gun Control: Examining Neoliberalism, Pro-gun Politics and Gun Violence in the United States. Theory in Action, 7(2), 74-103. doi:10.3798/tia.1937-0237.14011. Lott, J. R. (2013). More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun control laws, third edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McGovern, O. (2012). The responsible gun ownership ordinance and novel textual questions about the second amendment. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 102(2), 471-496. O’Brien, K., Forrest, W., Lynott, D., & Daly, M. (2013). Racism, Gun Ownership and Gun Control: Biased Attitudes in US Whites May Influence Policy Decisions. Plos ONE, 8(10), 1-10. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077552. Whitney, C. (2012). Living with guns: A Liberals case for the second amendment. Public Affairs. Read More