Presidential Campaign Platforms - Term Paper Example

?Introduction Christine Cadena in a recent online paper en d “Presidential Campaign Platforms 2008: Issues of Gun Control, Associated Content” reported that just about forty million Americans posses a gun. In her report, Cadena goes ahead to report that an estimated population of about 55,000 and 120,000 cases are reported annually in the US of situations where an American uses a gun in pretence of self defense (Cadena, 2008). Many authors contend that individual gun ownership is arguably one of the oldest and perhaps the most notable uniqueness associated with the American culture. Gun ownership has been constitutionally been protected for nearly above two hundred years by the “Second Amendment” giving American citizens the opportunity and right to “keep and bear arms”1, however, governing legal provisions that define control is not similar in all Federal States and they shift from State to State. It was not until 2008, when the Supreme Court sitting in 2008 in the District of Columbia v. Heller2, clearly defined the legal interpretation of the legal scope and depth of the meaning of the Second Amendment’s interpretation regarding an individual’s right to posses guns, creating the first open space ever for regulating various forms of arms to be possessed by American citizens. In a historic ruling, the court upholding a unanimous judgment argues that the Second Amendment in that as it were in the current form, the provisions assured an individual right towards gun ownership, further consolidating that this said right also extended to include gun possession in the home for reasons of self defense. This paper looks into context, the Second Amendment’s “Right to Bear Arms” in light of American social set-up and the applicability, substance and relevance of the issues as a topic of ongoing debate. Before the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the right to bear arms, there was no definite agreement as to the extent to which the Second Amendment really meant. However, opposing arguments to the Second Amendment have consistently argued that in light to gun ownership, the court overstated their mandate to guarantee individuals rights to own guns and that it is only the state who bears rights to own firearms, or to engage in any activity purported to support gun ownership through any means defined by law under organized State militia. Not until then, there was a general notion that the Second Amendment was a mere block to federal action, and applied in exception to State jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court in 2008 re-affirmed that the interpretation of the Second Amendment provided an individual with rights to own a gun not related to the organization of the militia, further extending the right to gun ownership’s right to use in a lawful process for purposes including but not limited to self defense. This right was also extended to federal governments, states and municipalities. Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the courts prohibited individual ownership of any form of firearm. In their interpretation of the Amendment, the District of Columbia law did not provide for citizens to carry any unregistered gun and from registering any firearm. Additionally, the law provided a different provision that guarded against carrying of guns without a legal government issued license, transferring the entire authority to license at the discretion to the chief of police. In was therefore seen that the court therefore provided a de facto prohibition on any individual owning a gun. The Second Amendment: an in-context examination The United State’s Second Amendment is part of the US Bill or Rights that seeks to uphold the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The bill was adopted in the US in 1791 on December the 15th with other additional Bill of Rights. This right to posses’ firearms has an earlier origin than the Bill of Rights; the right was informed partly by the citizen’s right to own a firearm and derived from the English-law, and greatly influenced by the English Bill of Rights as was adopted in 1969. During this period, Blackstone described this Bill as a supplementary right, in support and agreement to the ordinary rights of an individual to self defense, protect themselves from oppression and a civic duty to behave in recital in defense of the State. However, as the knowledge base expands and societies change, there is a consistent and general consensus on the proposition of the nature of the controversy of the amendment. For instance, academic scholarship into the issue differs widely relating to the purpose, depth and the possible societal effects of the amendment with varied interpretations of its applicability and relevance. In the current twenty first century, there exists varied versions of the Amendment; however, each version as examined seems to slightly differ from others as matters relating to punctuation and use of capitalization as contained in official government documents and applicability of the Bill of Rights. Notably, one version was agreed upon by the Congress while the remaining versions are found within the States and agreed upon by them. The Amendment is widely seen as the only existing amendment to the American constitution which defines a purpose. The Congress’ ratified version reads recognizes the use of an organized militia by the state with the appropriate security of a free state, not infringing the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms, and ratified by Thomas Jefferson, who was then the Secretary of State. The pre-constitutional background of the Second Amendment predates back to 1969 and largely on the influence of the English Bill of Rights. The 1969 English Bill of Rights arose during a defining moment in English politics during the period of conflict, in the heart of this conflict arose the issue of King’s power to govern the nation without Parliament’s approval and the place of Roman Catholic in a nation that was becoming resistant to Roman ruling in favor of the Protestants. In the American constitution, the legal system through the Supreme Court has always recognized the constitutional relationship between the Second Amendment and the English Bill of Rights of 1689, whereby both of these legal provisions recognize an existing right, not creating a newer one, and also recognized by the US legal institutions. Critics of the Second Amendment however, have argued against the shift of authority from the States government and ultimately being handed over to the Federal government. At the same time, other authors contend that James Madison was not the inventor of the law, but rather the existence of the law was provided for in the common law and earlier state bills. In face of this argument, other scholars including Jack Rakove have openly expressed their reservations with the constitutional intention that informed the drafting of the Bill arguing that Madison in drafting the Amendment was influenced by granting reassurances to the anti-federalists against disarming the state militias. Another dimension of the gun control argument is the consistent conflict between the laws of gun control and the right to protest against unjust governments. Blackstone argued that this right for a citizen to protest is recognized as a natural right, and can be exploited as a last resort. As the debate goes on, some contemporary scholars assert that the Bill of Rights should balance between opinionated power, the power, military power, states and the entire nation. To this group of thinkers, there is the general consensus that it is not in order to read a right of armed renaissance as provided for in the Second Amendment arguing that the drafters of the bill should have placed trust in the power of democratic governments when compared to anarchical civil disobedience. A Background synopsis on the District of Columbia v. Heller case In this legal case, the Supreme Court addressed in totality the legal depth of the Second Amendment and ruled that, the provisions of the Amendment “guarantee (s) the individual right to posses and carry weapons in case of confrontation”3 putting to rest and long lived controversy as to whether the Second Amendment indeed provided an individual with the right to posses firearm or whether the “right of the people to own firearm was premised upon membership of the militia”4 Arising from this ruling, there seems to be grave implications as to the provisions that are contained in the Second Amendment. In effect, these provisions provide a strong point in aiding the understanding and the depth of the Amendment, and its legal responsibility to protect citizens within the national boundary. In this case, the court argued that the wording of the “right of the people,” meant an “individual right, excluding its meaning to “collective right” or those that may be exercised through membership of some kind of organization. In defining this “individual right5,” the courts made reference to other similar uses of the “people” as contained in the US constitution, which has always been interpreted as an individual. In the usage of the wording “right to bear arms,” the Court argued that this was composed of two different phrases each implying separate actions as that to keep arms and bear arms.6 Within the prerogative of the Second Amendment, the forms of “Arms” defined include weapons that are often being used in self defense. However, it is important to note that when the definition of the term “arms” is restricted as provided for in the dictionary, there is a feeling that it creates a more restricted definition and tension especially when viewed in the manner that militia who have the capacity to conduct a well organized resistance to tyrannical oppression, with the understanding of contemporary military capabilities. In spite of this unforeseen apprehension with regard to the Amendment’s role and the extent of its practical application in societies, the court still held the view that it relied to the legal interpretation as used in the case between United States v. Miller7, which argued that “the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”8 Other contemporary scholars have shifted the focus of the extent to which Heller defined “Arms”, as they have argued that, Heller reasoning did not provide sufficient legal grounds for defining “Arms” and its applicability to individual, or whether the interpretation conferred possession of a single weapon or multiple ones for use in the self defense as perhaps the plurality of the word “Arms” may infer. Delimitations of the “Right to Bear Arms” Despite the general understanding that the constitution safeguarded the extent to the unlimited practicing of this right, holding that the right shall not be breached, the individual’s right to posses’ arms is limited to some degree. It therefore does not permit an individual to bear arms at their own discretion in the manner in which they please and to use it for their own selfish reasons. It is also important to note that while Heller did not directly define the actual delimitations on the exercise of this right, there was an attempt on its part to providing instances on the kind of regulations that would be tolerable. In this view, the court held the view that “majority of the 19th century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.”9 Adding that “possessions of firearms in felons and mentally ill, or provision of laws that forbidden carrying of firearms in sensitive places including schools and government buildings or existence of laws that imposed conditions and qualifications on commercial sale of firearms.”10 Sociological implications of the “Rights to Bear Arms” Constitutional elucidation There seems to be justifiable reasons to view the Second Amendment provision to have relevance in collective interpretation. Similar to other sections existence in the Bill of Rights, the Amendment is not viewed in unlimited advantage. For instance in Robertson v. Baldwin, the court held the view that the Bill of rights were only meant to lay ground for principles of government, subject to certain legal exceptions as determined by any foregoing circumstance. Largely, the gun control debate seemed like reaction to social circumstances that existed in the medieval era, falling in the early 1950s only to rise in the 1960s as a factor of societal unrest. These high level acts of violence prompted the need for tighter governmental regulations from cases of violence that were arising out of gun use. On the contrary, the highly organized social order of the 19th century significantly reduced the rates of crime, and a decline in social apprehension. In the 20th century, the situation is again being reversed with rise in crime rates in the face of economic meltdown. It has been argued that these high rates of crimes are partly being contributed by the high number of guns that are freely available in the US. In today’s economy, the US remains the main player in reporting cases of gun-related crimes. Therefore regulation measures aimed at enhancing the capacity of federal governments to control gun use would have a positive contribution towards contributing gun control in the US. More often than not, academic scholars contend that collective view of the Second Amendment does not result into one’s immediate loss of the right to bear arms, but rather such a view would only work in enhancing Congress’ ability to properly legislate on gun control legislations. On the contrary, opposing views bring two objections to this approach. On one hand, there is the feeling that individual possession of firearms work to control crimes in self defense, again, there is the argument that owning gun helps in preventing home based burglary even by mere notion that one has a gun even in situations when the gun is not put into actual use. References Cadena, C. (2008). Presidential Campaign Plaforms 2008: The Issues of Gun Control. US: Associated Content. McGovern, O. (2012). The Responsible Gun Ownership Ordinance and Novel Textual Questions about the Second Amendment. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology , 102 (2), 10202-0471. Read More