The End Of The War Of Succession And Its Consequences

The end of the War of Succession and its consequences

After the end of the Secession War in 1865, two former officers of the Army of the Union, Colonel William Conant Church and General George Wingate, formed in 1871 the National Rifle Association (in English National Rifle Association, NRA) in NuevaYork. The reason, according to them, was to foster a better aim for the northern side since they considered that the rural southerners had a better aim. In addition, the ANR was established as a non -profit association that promotes the security of the nation, as well as promoting education in firearms’ safety, aim training and shooting for entertainment, agreeto its motto.

The first president of the ANR was General Ambrose Burnside who assumed the position in the first year of the creation of the association. This general was a war veteran, senator and governor of the state of Rhode Island. The ANR designated Ambrose Burnside to reflect the second amendment, which says: ‘A well regulated militia is necessary for the safety of a free state, the right of people to maintain and carry weapons should not be infringed’. In this sense, the second amendment referred to having a citizenship prepared to attend in national military affairs, so their approach was not to affirm individually to have rights over weapons as today, but to have a citizenship ready for the defense of the defense of theUSA.

In 1919, Congress supported the movement of temperance through the establishment of the decimoctava amendment since this social movement associated alcohol consumption with poverty, as well as in domestic violence.

Therefore, the decimoctava amendment was manifested through the famous Dry Law of 1920, whose objective was to prohibit the sale of intoxicating drinks in the United States. The result of this provision was negative since he did not convince public opinion since, instead of solving the problems, they were aggravated. In this sense, gang members and gánster proliferated as a result of the illegal trade of alcoholic beverages and, in turn, these individuals possessed weapons such as shotguns and machine guns which exceeded the weapons of the police.of weapons. 

In 1920, the National Association of Revolver (NRA), the arm of the ANR responsible for training with firearms, proposed regulations before these waves of violence that were later adopted by nine states: Virginia Occidental, New Jersey, Michigan, Indiana,Oregon, California, Nuevo Hampshire, North Dakota and Connecticut. The legislation consisted of: 

1. Require permission to carry a hidden weapon.
2. Five years in additional prison if the weapon was used in a crime.
3. The prohibition of sale of weapons to non -citizens (illegal people).
4. A day waiting period between the purchase and reception of a gun.
5. Make available to the police the records of the sale of weapons (traffickers).

In turn, the United States Bar Association or American Bar Association (ABA) was based on the proposal of the National Association of Revolver while working on the creation of uniform state laws by having the authority for it. In this sense, the ABA established as a state rule the proposal of the National Association of Revolver. In addition, nine more states adopted it: Alabama, Arkansas, Maryland, Montana, Pennsylvania, Dakota del Sur, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

In 1929, the Valentine’s Day Massacre of Al Capone was produced where Men disguised from the Chicago Police was seen killing 7 rivals of the “North Side Gang” band with machine guns. As a result of the fateful event, in 1933, the new president of the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt made the fight against crime and arms control part of his ‘New Deal’. In this sense, the ANR helped, paradoxically, Roosevelt to write the National Firearms Law of 1934 and the 1938 Arms Control Law, the first federal laws on arms control. In addition, the Association’s Legislative Affairs Division spread through its American Rifleman magazine the information, among its members, on these laws. These laws consisted of:

First, impose strong taxes and regulatory requirements for firearms associated with crimes, such as machine guns, shotguns and silencers.

Secondly, weapon vendors and owners had to be registered in the Federal Government.

Third, limit the sale of weapons through state limits

Finally, criminals and fugitives were prohibited from having weapons.

To himself, the Supreme Court not only ratified the legislation in 1939, but Karl t. Frederick, the president of the ANR, declared prior approval of the laws, in Congress that ‘I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I think it should be strongly restricted and only under license ’

During the next thirty years, the ANR continued to support weapons control, although everything would change during the sixties.

On November 22, 1963, the president of the United States of America, John F. Kennedy was killed at the hands of Lee Harvey Oswald with a military rifle which he bought by mail through the announcement of the American Rifleman magazine of the ANR. Later, the Vice President of the ANR declared in favor of prohibiting the sale of weapons by mail, saying: ‘We think that any sensible American, which is called American, can object to the inclusion in this bill of the instrument that killed the president ofthe United States ‘ 

On the other hand, acts of racial discrimination were being lived between the police and the people of color which led to the NRA to support the Mulford Law of California, which prohibited carrying weapons loaded in public, as a result of the patrols they madeThe members or supporters of the Panther Negra Party in order to observe and document the police activity in search of signals of police behavior and brutality. In this sense, the response to this law was a march of the Pantras Negras party in the State Capitol to protest against the arms control legislation on May 2, 1967. At this time we see the first steps of law in favor of weapons. 

Following this fact, Detroit disturbances occurred in the summer of 1967 between the black population and the police, more than 40 dead, 1200 injured and 7200 people arrested, (wikipedia) [Footnoteref: 7] together with the murders of Martin LutherKing Jr. and Robert f. Kennedy in 1968 led Congress to reconsider the availability of weapons of the United States, which finally produced a new 1968 weapons control law. This law prohibited the sale of weapons through the mail since the murderer, Lee Harvey Oswald, had requested his infamous rifle of the pages of American Rifleman for only $ 19.95. In addition, the 1968 law restricted the shipment of weapons through the state lines to collectors and federal license dealers, and certain types of bullets could only be purchased with an identification sample. Also, a minimum age for weapons buyers (18 years for rifles or 21 for hand weapons)criminals to include addicts to mentally ill and drugs.

The new arms control law was strong barriers for the access of weapons, which caused certain sectors of the ANR, as the libertarians did not agree and were more supporters of the line of the Pantras Negras. In addition, the law ordered the Federal Office of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to enforce the new arms laws what was in 1971 to produce a gap within the ANR. The trigger was that, the ATF made a raid at the house of one of the members of the National Rifle Association after having suspicions of possessing a great knead of illegal weapons. However, the result of the raid ended with the death of the member after being paralyzed. In this sense, the reactions soon arrived by the libertarians who began to affirm that the second amendment protected the individual right to weapons, as, in a way, the black panthers did.

In 1975, the ANR created the Institute of Legislative Action (ILA), specifically designed as a lobby for the rights of the second amendment. In command was Harlon B. Carter, a former head of the United States Border Patrol who shared the libertarian objective of expanding the rights of arms owners. 

During this time, the ANR fractured in those who supported weapons as a right and those who wanted to expand the scope of the ANR. In 1977, the "Cincinati" Revolt was produced where Carter and his followers (the hard line of the association) snatched the control of the number from the existing leaders, whose concerns included sportsmanship and ecologism, making the ANRsingle -topic weapons lobby. In addition, Carter was appointed Executive Vice President, the most powerful position in the organization. 

With a newly reorganized management and purpose, the ANR entered the 1980s with a more cohesive base. The energies were focused on opposing weapons control.

Despite the defense of the association’s weapons, the racial conflicts present during this century did not stop since during the 199050 lives, 2000 wounded and 3600 fires due to the favorable sentence to the police who previously updated the Rodney taxi driver. The Court formed mostly by White people caused the African -American population to take to the streets in protest to the verdict. In this sense, we will see later that the riots will not stop the culture of the weapons of the Americans.

The legality of weapons

The establishment of the second amendment has meant a headache in North American politics and society due to the ambiguous definition of such law. In this sense, according to its definition it only clarifies the right of the people to possess and carry weapons which should not be infringed, when a well -prepared militia is necessary to guarantee the safety of a free state (“a well regulated militia beingNecessary to the Security of a Free State, The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, Shall Not Be infringed ”). In this sense, this second amendment was designed after the War of Independence (1775-1783), in 1791, so the fundamental objective was the security of the Nation through the use of weapons in case of war. However, as we have seen in the history of the National Rifle Association, the change in the direction in the late 1970sweapons. However, according to legality, the high court, who has the power to delimit and define the scope of this right, in the thirties dictated against the possession of weapons. In this sense, we will talk about the United States against Miller, 1939.

As we have seen before in the history of the National Rifle Association, the celebrities twenty were characterized by waves of violence and crimes at the hands of the mafias. One of the most important was Al Capone, which operated in the city of Chicago, as well as in other cities in the country. In this sense, the 1929 Valentine Matanza was a turning point as the possession of weapons, since the result of the fateful act derives in the National Weapons Law of 1934. This law established higher requirements to obtain weapons, one of them were the high taxes that were to be paid (200 USD which would be equivalent today about 3000USD), as well as the registration of weapons. In this context, the criminal Miller, who robbed banks, was arrested as a result of the evasion of the tax and the omission to register the weapon, motivated by the National Firearms Law. The case of the United States against Miller reached high court since the defense considered that the second amendment was being violated which considered that possession of weapons was a constitutional right. However, the Supreme Court, unanimously, estimated in the United States ruling against Miller that the second amendment related the right to possess and carry weapons in relation to the militia that the second amendment itself speaks (Jews for the Preservation of FirearmOwnership, JPFO). Therefore, for the judges of the Supreme. In short, the Supreme Court ruled against Miller, which implies that the United States against Miller will create a jurisprudence against weapons as a constitutional right. However, despite the jurisprudence on weapons, in 2008, the case of Columbia district against Heller reopened the debate due to the judgment issued.

In 1975, the Washington Council approved the Law on Firearms Control Regulation in response to increased firearms and accidental deaths, limited the use and possession of firearms. Due to the connection of guns with both risks, the law specifically prohibited gun possession, including shotguns, machine guns, short cannon rifles and guns, and demanded that legal firearms (for example, shotguns and rifles) were recordedin the city. The law also required that the firearms that were kept in the house were downloaded and unarmed or secured with trigger insurance

Now, according to said law, in 2006, the Heller police file. However, the Federal Court fails against Heller since it considered that ‘the second amendment does not grant any right to people, except, perhaps, when a person serves in an organized militia¨”. After the sentence, Heller filed a claim before the Court of Appeal since he considered that the prohibition of the gun registration violated the right established in the second amendment to the US Constitution. This Court established that ¨The second amendment protects the individual right to possess firearms, and that the total prohibition of the district on the guns and the obligation that the rest of firearms that were had at home were unusable (even though althoughwere necessary in case of self-defense) violated this right¨

In this sense, the Heller case arrived at the Supreme Court where the judges found two clearly confronted positions. On the one hand, the Columbia district with the support of the Federal Court understood that the second amendment only protects the right to possess and carry weapons in relation to the militia, that is, with the possibility that US citizens be called to serveHis country for war and, therefore, they must carry their own weapons. On the other hand, Heller with the support of the Court of Appeal argued that the second amendment protects the individual right to possess firearms regardless of service in a militia, and that these weapons can be used for legal reasons such as self-defense at home.

During the process that I have been in 2008, many organizations participated in the case joined. One of them were the professors of linguistics and English who expressed their position in favor of a modern interpretation of the right to possess and carry weapons since the definition of the second amendment was obsolete, that it would make it clear that this right cannot be infringed. The interpretation led the high court to make a detailed analysis of certain terms collected in the second amendment such as "Arms" (ARMS), possess (Keep) and Portar (Bear). Thus, from the sentence we can extract the following conclusions made by the High Court.

First, the term "ARMS", the sentence is based on the fact that this term is not limited to weapons specifically designed for military use. The Supreme Court rejected the allegations that sought to link the term "weapons" to those used when the second amendment was approved, that is, to the weapons existing in the 18th century (weapons of military use)

Second, the term ¨KEEP¨ of which the Columbia district made a more favorable interpretation of its interests, since it considered that “possessing weapons” can only be understood in relation to participation in a militia, that is, it is necessary tohave weapons and keep the same about the possibility that a citizen is called to a militia. In this sense, the court rejected this interpretation understanding that the only viable interpretation is that Keep Arms was simply a common way of referring to the possession of weapons, both by the members of a militia and any other person.

Third, the term "Bear" that, according to various authors cited by the supreme himself (Johnson, Webster and Sheridan), did not mean anything other than approved the second amendment to "carry, carry". This assumes that the right to carry weapons ("for an offensive or defensive action in case of a conflict with another person") in no case entails participation in a structured military organization such as a militia.

Thus, the sentence gave the reason to the Court of Appeal and, therefore, to the Police Heller, since it declared unconstitutional the prohibition of the possession of guns and the requirements for the maintenance of other firearms in the home established by law by lawThe Columbia district, in other words, the high court recognized as a fundamental right the possession of weapons for the purpose of self-defense at the federal level.

After the case of the Columbia district against Heller, it followed the case of McDonald against the city of Chicago where now the problem is whether the second amendment protects the owners of firearms from state and local governments (since each state hasits own laws, being able to define the degree of restriction). In this sense, a group of citizens decided to file a law. After the rejection of the court as a result of the law that prohibited the registration of weapons, the plaintiffs decided to go to the Supreme Court when they understood that the Heller case was applicable to their situation. In this sense, the group of citizens claimed that the 1982 law left them vulnerable to criminals. One of these citizens was Otis McDonald, who, when participating in community activities in his neighborhood (characterized by high crime), he had received threats from drug vendors. Another plaintiff was Colleen Lawson, a woman who had been assaulted in her house repeatedly. As a result of the high crime, McDonald, Lawson and other citizens possessed guns, but due to the existing ban in Chicago they were forced to have them stored outside the limits of the city, which caused the inability to defend themselves. In this sense, the group of citizens went to the high court alleging the violation of the second and the fourteenth amendment. In fact, the plaintiffs and certain organizations contributed certain data that in question that the possession of weapons by citizens in their homes were directly related to the increase in violence and deaths. Thus, the Heartland Institute (citing statistics from the Chicago Police Department) detailed that while in 1983 39.78% of the murders were committed with guns, in 2008 that figure amounted to 60.21%, which meant that in the 25 years of validity of the Municipal Prohibition of Chicago, the murders caused by gun had increased (more than 60% in relation to the population). In other words, the Heartland Institute showed that since in Chicago it was forbid. The report that the plaintiffs presented to the Supreme Court consisted of the following allegation: the right of the second amendment to maintain and carry weapons must be applied to the states and municipalities through the due process clause or the clause of privileges and immunities (respect allthe rights) of the fourteent.

For its part, the city of Chicago understood that the rights collected in Bill of Rights only referred to the states of the Union when said right is an indispensable attribute of any civilized legal system, which in its opinion does not assume that the secondAmendment must be applied to the states that make up.UU., having civilized countries that prohibit or strictly regulate the private pistol possession.

According to the two parties, the High Court sentenced in the case of McDonald against Chicago that, the right of an individual to maintain and carry weapons is incorporated and applied to the states through the due process of due process of the decimocular amendment. In this sense and in favor of the case, Judge Alito observed: ‘It is clear that the editors and ratifiers of the fourteenth amendment took into account the right to maintain and carry weapons among the fundamental rights necessary for our orderly freedom system’. ‘The fourteenth amendment causes the second amendment to have the right to maintain and carry weapons fully applicable to the states’. In a concurrent opinion separately, Judge Thomas wrote that: ¨The second amendment is fully applicable to states because the right to maintain and carry weapons is guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment as a privilege of US citizenship. ".

The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the prohibition of weapons, and decided instead to reverse and send the case for additional procedures. However, the decision of the courts on the second amendment makes it clear that such prohibitions are unconstitutional. But, as stated in the Heller case, the court reiterated in McDonald that the second amendment only protects the right to possess a firearm at home for legal uses, such as the legitimate defense. In addition, he stressed that some regulation of firearms is constitutionally admissible and that the right to possess firearms of the second amendment is not unlimited, that is, it does not guarantee the right to possess any firearm, anywhere and for anypurpose.

On the other hand, dissident judges argued that the right to possess weapons was not ‘fundamental’ and, therefore, states and localities should have the freedom to regulate them or even prohibit them. They said that Heller’s decision on which the court was based largely was incorrect and even if it were correct, they would not have extended their applicability to the states.

In short and, despite the fact that the study of the most recent jurisprudence on the second amendment could lead us to think that the problem about the right to possess and carry weapons is at the time overcome, in real terms it forces us to be cautious. In this sense, the three sentences of the cases mentioned were issued by a narrow margin of 5 votes in favor and 4 against, which highlighted the strong division that exists in the highest US judicial body on the interpretation of the Constitution andThe politicization by which the High Court is characterized (the president of the United States appoints candidates for the supreme aribunal, the recent controversial appointment was the conservative judge Kavanaugh) at certain times in its history, even being life charges what a priori would givea certain perception of independence. In this sense, the sentences of the three cases mentioned have only made more doubts about the fragmentation of the high court, as well as doubts on issues such as Bush against Gore, which would decide that the presidency of the United States in 2000 was going toStop George W. Bush after a problem with the counting of the votes in Florida.

The culture of weapons

After the two great massacres of the last five years, Las Vegas in 2017 and Orlando in 2016, which left more than one hundred victims at the hands of only two people, a retiree and a 29 -year -old, have not impacts a decrease in possessionof arms (Amanda Mars, 2018). According to the "Small" Armas Survey, of the 857 million weapons for civilians, 46% are in the USA. UU (Excelsior, 2018), that is, almost half of all weapons that are for civil use are in the hands of Americans which means that there is a strong link between weapons and Americans.

The sociologist, Patricia Fernández-Kelly explained that "weapons are a symbol of individualism, patriotism and self-defense capacity". In this sense, the origin of all this is that, for the American weapons are a symbol of freedom (Paula Lugones, 2017), a freedom that began after the war of independence when American colonialism began to establish itself as a country through useof weapons, which allowed to gain independence over the United Kingdom. In this sense, the second amendment of the Constitution was created with the objective of being a guarantee so that Americans could carry weapons as part of militia groups to impose themselves before a tyrannical government, that is, to be a resource of the people for defenseof his country. In this sense, we must understand that American citizenship has a very strong philosophy regarding the rejection of the State, that is, it is an individualistic society where the State does not have the right to intervene in their home or in their family. In other words, Americans before an invasion of their property decide what to do, that is, they defend, through weapons, what is their own without the State having to intervene. However, as the country evolved, the second amendment would be obsolete of meaning and, new actors such as the ANR, which, at the end of the 20th century, defended the possession of weapons as the right of the second amendment. Both the ANR and the citizens pro Armas defended in favor of the possession of weapons as a guarantee when interpreting the definition of the second amendment as such right. In fact, the three cases cited, issued a sentence in favor of the possession of weapons, yes, in a tight result, they caused a more reinforcement towards the possession of weapons and therefore it is not surprising the numbers so chilling that the survey throws"Pepheñas weapons".

Now, once the central argument of why the Americans see weapons as a national symbol, let’s see the data provided by Pew Reseach Center (Ruth Igielnik and Anna Brown, 2017) based on a survey that was conducted between the months between the monthsFrom March to April 2017 where 3930 adults were surveyed, of which 1290 they were arms owners.

In the first place, in this graph the greatest number of pollsters consider that weapons are used for protection, so we see how what we have explained previously is reaffirmed, the feeling of protection that US citizenship has as a result of the independence process.which currently supposes as an identity or arms culture that Americans have to arms.

In this sense, the following graph can see how more than 70% of weapons owners consider the possession of weapons as a consequence of the emptiness left by the free interpretation of said second amendment, as well as the aforementioned cases that reinforce the carrying weapons.

On the other hand, it is very significant that American citizens have the highest percentage of weapons between two and four which causes that in the United States there are more weapons than citizens, as well as there is a greater probability that massacres such as that ofLas Vegas or Orlando when having more weapons. In fact, the case of Las Vegas, the retiree had an armament arsenal capable of being shot and murdered all night to civilians. In this sense, a limited number of weapons should be imposed to avoid or reduce probable massacres.

Finally, in the PEW Research Center survey it has caught our attention that almost half of what they have weapons live in rural residences which seeing the map are located in the old Louisiana. According to Kevin H. Wozniak, professor of the Department of Sociology at the University of Massachusetts, in Boston points out that, “part of the values of the inhabitants of the field and is something that is transferred through families. On the other hand, for those who live in cities and have never had weapons, that culture is strange and foreign ’(Darío Mizrahi, 2017). In this sense, the south and the west medium has a culture strongly linked to the possession of weapons rather than in the northeast or northwest, that is, the coasts. This may be due to: 

1. Less restrictive states legislation.
2. States with a passion for hunting since we must remember that 38% of arms owners use them to hunt.
3. States with less development in weapons education.