The Second Amend Act and Gun Control Movements

The Second Amend Act and Gun Control Movements
Introduction
The right to own and bear arms is possibly among the most polarizing issues in the United States. The bipartisan nature of US political landscape means that the national is always divided into two almost equally strong fragments when discussing an issue of national importance. It has therefore been difficult to reach any amicable conclusion regarding the case of gun laws. A significant majority of the political left believes that the legal right of citizens to own guns contributes to increased crime rates. On the other hand, an overwhelming number of the political right proposes that availability of guns reduces crime through enabling law-abiding citizens to stop criminal activities. In reality, the latter pro-gun propositions raise a more valid argument as a close deliberation of the topic through this research paper will indicate.
History of the Gun Laws Controversy.
The Constitution of the United States enshrines the right of citizens to bear arms. The second amendment states that “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.” Owning a rifle has therefore been an inalienable legal right of any adult American citizen of sound mind and permissible criminal records since the inception of the constitution. However, various forms of gun-control, measures began right after independence. For example, some countries put laws that only allowed possession of different types of guns.

Sometimes these laws were deemed racial and classist since they allowed possession of expensive weapons that could not be afforded by slaves. However, both federalists and anti-federalists alike understood the necessity of guns. For a country that was just emerging from civil war, there was wavering trust for the new political systems. The strengthening of the central government especially threatened the freedom of the people and use of guns emerged as the only legitimate that the people could remain free of oppression in case the powers that be turned rogue.
In support of this view, various states made significant efforts to ensure the second amendment principles was protected in the constitution. New York, New Hampshire, and Virginia, for example, deemed it necessary to indicate clearly that their ratification was undertaken with the understanding that the citizens retained their right to bear arms. Congress would therefore never disarm law abiding citizens; otherwise, the ten would be void. On the other hand, North Carolina and Rhode Island chose to withhold the process of ratification until they were assured those individual rights which included that of keeping and bearing arms were recognized in protected in the amendments. The same events occurred in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, where there was an active effort to amend or condition ratification of the amendment to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms was protected. The right to own and bear guns have thus been pertinent to the nation from the start (Vandercoy 27).
20th century, however, saw the real rise of anti-gun movements. In 1911, the Sullivan Act was enacted. This policy mandated that possession and bearing of any concealable gun require a license. The possession of such a weapon without a permit would constitute to a misdemeanor while bearing them would constitute a felony. In 1934, the National Firearms Act was instituted with the directive of collecting taxes on trade and transfer of firearms. However, NFA is always interpreted as having a hidden agenda of curtailing the possession of arms that fell under the NFA category of taxable firearms. The reason behind this move was the opinion that such guns contributed significantly to crime especially gang-related crime such as the St. Valentine’s Day massacre that occurred around this time. A still intact $200 tax imposition on a product that cost a maximum of $5 would have certainly kept guns out of the hands of the majority of the Americans (“National Firearms Act | Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms And Explosives”). This marked the onset of the rhetoric that guns enhanced criminal activity that is advanced up to the modern era by anti-gun activists. In 1984, the previously subtle campaigns became pronounced with the public face of Sarah Brady. Her husband had been shot in an assassination attempt against President Reagan four years earlier, and when she saw her son with a 0.22 fully loaded gun he had collected as a toy, she vowed to become a complete rival of the National Rifle Association. Her almost single-handed but spirited fight led to the institution of the Brady Bill which mandated a background check on all gun purchasers. In 1993, the shooting event at a train left a father dead and his son gravely injured. This propelled the man’s wife, into the anti-gun campaign and later into Congress (Thurber 1).
Recent cases of gun violence across the United States have exacerbated the anti-gun rhetoric across the country. The Sandy Hook shootings revived calls to at least restrict the capacity of rifles that could be borne by civilians. President Obama, who has continuously called for an emphasis on gun control policies since his first election took this incident as an opportunity to remind pro-gun activists of the horrors of guns in hands or the wrong people. Gun control, therefore, remains at the center of American politics and will permeate the fabric of social relationships for the foreseeable future. (Braga and Hureau 37)

Landmark Legal Proceedings
The already discussed Sullivan Act and the National Firearm Act are among the most prominent legislations that bore direct consequences on the relationship of guns and citizens. The judicial process however often offers more accurate litmus on the state of various policies in a country. There are numerous court proceedings that have either contradicted the judicial system’s commitment to the second amendment act or upheld this act. Court rulings are however delicately voiced so as to ensure proper decisions are reached.
DC v Heller
In the DC v Heller, the District of Columbia and imposed a ban on all handguns. It had further instructed that all guns at home have the cock either locked or removed and be stored unloaded. Heller, who wished to own a gun at home but was denied on account of these legislations, filed a lawsuit on the grounds of the second amendment (“DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER”). The seven circuits’ Court observed that the requirement to keep gun cocks locked at home even when use may be necessary violated the second amendment provisions and therefore required that DC amend its state laws. This ruling did not mention the federalism of the gun laws issue and therefore created confusion over whether the second amendment applied to every state. As a result, various states began taking diversified measures to regulate gun use.
McDonald v Chicago
In Chicago Illinois, the confusion created in the DC v Heller case opened a window of opportunity for the manipulation of gun laws. There was instituted a ban on handguns across the state and the local rifle association sponsored litigation on behalf of several residents appalling the decisions by the seven circuit courts that upheld the Chicago ban in the McDonald v Chicago case. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upset this ruling and decided that the rights of every citizen in the US to own and bear arms was protected by the constitution and applied to all stated.
Caetano v Massachusetts
Among the most prominent proceedings is the Caetano v Massachusetts lawsuit. In this case, Caetano was accused of using a stun gun on her husband who was against the law in Massachusetts. According to the prosecution, the second amendment law did not protect stun-guns which are a later invention. This decision appeared to be an overstretched attempt of the state to regulate the use of arms. A stun gun is a form of weapon that momentarily incapacitates an individual using electric shock. Caetano decided to possess such a defense object after numerous futile attempts to file a restraining order against the violent husband. The chief purpose of allowing use of arms in civilian possession is defense. Self-defense is indeed a fundamental right of every citizen of the United States. Without this, all the citizens would be forced to live in fear. If Caetano had purchased a handgun instead of a stun gun, she would have fired a fatal shot without contradicting the law of Massachusetts.
The decision to prosecute her thus failed on several grounds even in the case of gun-control enthusiasts. First of all, the state had failed to protect Caetano by failing to issue a restraining order and ensuring its inaction. Caetano, therefore, had no option than to act in self-defense. Later, she faced prosecution for choosing to use non-lethal force. There are numerous valid reasons that may cause individuals to opt to use nonlethal forms of defense. In most cases, the reason is that most people are not ready to face the immense psychological burden of taking another person’s life and especially when the opponent is a close individual such as this case. Additionally, many individuals have to protect themselves from crimes where terminating the life of the other is entirely unnecessary. The rise of such weapons as Stun guns should, therefore, be a hearty welcome to any individuals whose intention is to reduce crime. Finally, Caetano was vindicated by the decision by the state against the DC v Heller ruling that decided that the second amendment act protects all guns that were invented after its inceptions.
This case indicated how fragile the rights to own guns were positioned in the constitution. The polarity of the issue extends even to the judiciary. Judicial systems are likely to align their ruling depending on the traditional alignment of the political affiliations. Democratic-leaning states are therefore likely to issues ruling prejudiced towards anti-gun rhetoric while the Republican-affiliated states are more apt to take hardliner positions towards absolute freedom to possess guns. It is therefore usually difficult to get a neutral position concerning the case (Habib 1).
Politics in Gun Control
The mild success of Sarah Brady and the near futile efforts of Carolyn McCarthy are a sharp indicator of political influence in all polarized issues such as gun control. As a Republican, Brady’s call for gun law regulation took a more valid approach. On the other hand, a call from a Democratic-leaning individual is always taken as a malicious attempt to cripple the freedoms of American people (O’Keefe 1). Although constitutionally a multiparty nation that allows for as much as independent candidature in elections, the United States is principally a two-party system dominated by the Democrats and the Republicans. As demonstrated in the last elections, the political muscle of the two rivals is almost equal. In an area that is more likely to be further perforated than presidential elections, the country generates 50% for and 50% against gun control. Many say and think they are independent, but in the end, they have to choose one side. A big issue with having a two party only system is that it does not allow for proper discourse. When you have two polar opposite viewpoints, the middle ground disappears or becomes a minority.
The challenge with this is it prevents neutrality and objectivity in determining related policies. Whenever this topic is raised, the involved partied begin from an already prejudiced position. There is a vast range of statistics concerning the efficacy of gun laws. Each of these sources of data and information is skewed to coincide with the intentions of the writer. For this reason, it is almost certainly possible for any individual to validate their preferred point of view depending on the evidence they choose to investigate. To determine the real task, in this case, one must be willing to delve into the study of data and evidence from both avenues. As in any study, only an unbiased study can give rise to a sound conclusion.
It is therefore quite unlikely that a sound judgment can arise from any arm of the government that has political interests. The two-party dynamics go all the way to the US Supreme Court, which is why we keep having a 4/5 decision when it comes to gun cases and seems always go towards the gun rights over gun control. Besides the government officials who have the power to deliberate on these cases appear to have never shot a gun, so they have no frame of reference. They seem only to get their information from non-experiential data, not doing their research or finding actual statistics. These false findings then spread as truths once again erasing the middle ground entirely (Winkler 1).
Global scenario on Gun Control
Since it is almost to decide on the efficacy of gun control owing to the magnitude of conflicting data available, conducting a study on foreign policies on gun control in an important point towards modeling the US case scenario. On the higher extreme, there is Switzerland whose guns per capita possession is only rivaled by the US and Serbia. In Switzerland, it is required that people own rifles. According to data collected in 2011, there was an average of 0.5 deaths per 100000 people in Switzerland. In contrast, there were five deaths per every 100000 individuals in the US the same year (Bachmann 1).
In Australia, the government bought back privately owned guns after a change of laws made their possession illegal. This lead to the recovery and smelting of about 700000 guns costing the state approximately AUD500 million. Apart from the denial of the legal right to own guns, the provincial affected the Australians though an increased medical levy of 0.2%. The number of guns in civilian possession in the US is approximated to be about 300 million guns. The process of collecting them back would, therefore, be tragic for the nations regarding both security and economic impact. There are countries that have conducted gun buyback procedures such as Argentina with more or less the same result. There is acutely dismal or no reduction in gun crime.
Discussion
The NRA has not shown any inclination to budge on gun rights because they believe it is an inalienable right and once tampered with it will lead to the eventual degradation of that right. Besides, the institution record victory in lawsuits signifies that the US legal system is still hefty inclined to gun rights. This is rightly the position to take since gun control does not have any positive impacts on the nation. It is just likely to increase crime and cause the government unnecessary economic repercussions. Gun control proponents jump on the mass shooting instantly calling for stricter gun laws. They see this as a great example of why gun control is necessary. There are a few issues with this idea. Firstly they do not take into account where these shootings take place. The reason these sick people pick the places that they do is that they are gun free zones with large body counts. Apart from the large body counts which increase the success rate of their mission, there is another undeniable fact why lunatics choose these sites. Since they are gun free zones, they are perceived as areas of low resistance. Any individual knows that unless there is a policeman within, the will be able to kill a significant number of people before they can be apprehended. Probably, if these were not gun free zones, the criminals would have more reservations about walking into these areas to open fire. Also, there would be a higher probability of intervention from the public and thus a decreased level of casualties.
The notion of gun free zones in many cases induces some form of heinousness. There is an overall negative influence associated with guns. This explains the recent police shooting of a black boy who has a toy gun. It is implied that anyone with a gun aims at destruction. One of the reasons why Switzerland has achieved so much success with gun use is the fact that the guns are accepted as an intricate part of the society. Apart from a catholic-protestant crisis in the late 19th century, Switzerland has not been engaged in any military conflict. However, individuals are allowed to carry rifles in public without any challenges.
There is a general inclination to fixate on the type of gun used in a mass shooting site. This leads to the analogy that all high capacity assault rifles should be banned so that the US never experiences another event like Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. This may be a valid point since in any case; there is little chance that an individual will be faced with a threat requiring self-defense that will use more than one or two bullets. However, this diminishes any argument against gun control. By suggesting that the state removes higher capacity guns, activists concede to the fact that crazy people will still possess guns and will kill whenever they want to. This proposition, therefore, suggests that we let them kill but minimize their capability to inflict widespread damage. This case may be drawn from such examples as the most recent example of the Ohio state murders where a man killed people with a car and a butcher knife.
The case of this man presents a valid pro-gun point. The excessive killings by the Ohio murderer were prevented because law-abiding citizen with a gun stopped him. This is one example of a case where civilians with guns work efficiently to minimize crime (“Stronger Gun Laws, Fewer Deaths” 1570). This is more effective than reducing the capacity of guns. There are mass shooting instances where the culprit has used several guns to accomplish the offense. Multiple low capacity guns could be just as effective in accomplishing a crime of immense magnitude. This situation would be exacerbated by the fact that the criminal would be aware of the civilians’ incapacity to stop him. Gun control, therefore, increases the vulnerability of people rather than safety.
The Brady Bill was supposed to introduce background checks to any gun purchasing individual. In fact, the second amendment is not purely a clean sheet that enables anyone to possess any weapon. There are limitations as to which weapons may be borne and which individuals may bear them. The frequently quoted cases of gun misuse involve individuals with previously reported psychological problems who should not have possessed guns in the first place. The fact that they had guns means that there is a lapse in the retailing sector, or these individuals’ attained guns illegally. With the current regulations on how to acquire a gun, there are still loopholes that lead to guns ending up in wrong hands. Under gun control, the only people that will be affected are those legally obtaining guns. When you ban semi-automatic assault weapons that do not make them cease to exist it merely makes them harder to get legally. Besides, the process of gun repossession would certainly lead to exposure of many firearms to wrong hands. The high turnover would most likely lead to increased access to guns in the black markets due to the increased demand. A helpful analogy would be drugs. Just because cocaine is illegal does not mean it does not exist or that it cannot be obtained. When we look at whom stands to be punished by stricter gun laws we see that it is only law abiding citizens.
It can, therefore, be argued that criminals would benefit from such laws. Because they already obtain weapons illegally and now they don’t have to worry about law-abiding citizens having similar firepower. No person who participated in killings is law abiding and therefore the gun control policies would not eliminate the imminent threat to the American society.
The left believes gun control is synonymous with crime control. They believe that the number of guns has a direct correlation with crime. The first issue here is that not all crimes have guns involved. Even when a crime like murder is examined the statistics don’t fit the outcry. The main guns demonized are assault rifles. Out of the 12,000 murders in 2014 only 248 were committed by rifles. An important fact to note here is that this statistic encompasses all rifles, not just the demonized assault weapons.
A big issue the pro-gun control side brings up is the idea of a “gun show loophole.” This refers to the idea that background checks are not required at gun shows. This is simply not true it is illegal to sell a gun at a gun show without conducting the standard background check. A common request from gun control activists is for stricter or more comprehensive background checks. Looking for things such as mental health issues not just criminal records. This on its face seems doable and like a healthy compromise. The issue becomes present when you realize what these background checks would entail. You would be required to hand over your private medical records to purchase something that you have a constitutional right to own. It is undeniable that there is a breakdown in the process of vetting gun purchasers even with standard checkups requires. Recent mass shootings are clear evidence for this laxity with guns ending up in the hands of psychiatric cases. There are also quite many guns peddling around in the black markets. The issue with mass shootings and crime are therefore more or less a social problem than a policy one.
The gradual deterioration of social support and economic structures and the growing status gap has invariably led to increasing in criminal activities involving guns neither of which can be solved by a simple gun control policy. The detrimental consequences of the collapse the social system fabrics are also evident are the mass shootings. Depression and other mental decision problems are rising. Hate and racial profiling are becoming a social norm. Recent tragic events at a gay club in Orlando demonstrated the catastrophic results if the lack of social support mechanisms to vulnerable individuals.
The constant insistent on gun control, therefore, takes attention away from the more urgent need that is expressed by these violent expressions. This denotes the real reasons why the gun related criminal activities are 10 times higher than in Switzerland where income levels are more equitably distributed, and social support systems are stronger. Instead of continuing the rhetoric of gun control, the country should concentrate on solving the root causes that lead to the criminal activities. By doing this, the system will eliminate the threat instead of making the citizens weaker. Otherwise, any other measure would be curing the symptoms of a disease while neglecting the causative agent.
Besides, even if indeed America got to wind up with gun control policies, the process of implementing compliance is bound to be more disastrous. The Australian process is a magnificent example that can help model the case for the US. In 1997 they had a mass shooting and staged a buyback of all guns. This essentially means they rounded up all the guns that fell into the affected category and melted them down. First, even if this were constitutional in the U.S, which it isn’t, the federal government would have to have some list of every gun and their owner. It is estimated that there are 300 million plus guns in the U.S. today. Purely from a logical standpoint this cannot be achieved let alone be justified from a legal standpoint. The opposing argument might come from Switzerland where all citizens are practically required to own a gun, and there is virtually no gun crime there. In any case, the ardent will that NRA has put into protecting gun rights arise from the economic value of the industry. This too cannot be ignored while considering such ambitious proposals as eliminating second amendment rights. The crumbling of this industry would push more people into unemployment majority of them with perhaps rudimentary knowledge about making weapons but probably excellent knowledge on how to use them. There will be a more obvious rise in crime rather than a reduction.
Conclusion
A big tool of the gun control side is to take JFK’s advice “Never let a good crisis go to waste” so any time there is anything in the headlines like a mass shooting the first cry is Ban Guns the first thing you hear about is gun control. This is a misguided attempt that deflects attention from the real problems that assail the American society. As many pro-gun activists have said, guns do not kill people, people do. The numbers of individuals who are killed from accidental shootings are relatively low. This means that other individuals who killed have intended to do so. In mass shootings, following findings always indicate that the individuals have been planning the mass killings for a very long time. Since illegal guns would still be available, and rightly so in a higher scale if gun control measures were implemented, mass shootings would still recur. It is, therefore, essential that mass activism moves from gun control to measure that solve the cause of gun related crime. This is especially because the main looser in gun control disadvantages the law abiding citizen against the criminal. If the illegal gun user knows that he or she is encountering a group without protection, they will have more confidence and perpetuate more frequent comes. The second amendment rights should thus be upheld at all times.
Works Cited
Bachmann, Helena. “The Swiss Difference: A Gun Culture That Works | TIME.Com”. TIME.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 1 Dec. 2016.
Braga, Anthony A. and David M. Hureau. “Strong Gun Laws Are Not Enough: The Need For Improved Enforcement Of Secondhand Gun Transfer Laws In Massachusetts”. Preventive Medicine 79 (2015): 37-42. Web.
“DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER”. Law.cornell.edu. N.p., 2016. Web. 1 Dec. 2016.
Habib, Michael J. “The Future Of Gun Control Laws Post-Mcdonald And Heller And The Death Of One-Gun-Per-Month Legislation”. SSRN Electronic Journal n. pag. Web.
“National Firearms Act | Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms And Explosives”. Atf.gov. N.p., 2016. Web. 1 Dec. 2016.
O’Keefe, Ed. “‘If I Didn’T Do It, Who Would?’ Carolyn Mccarthy, Face Of Gun Control Movement, Prepares To Leave Congress”. Washington Post. N.p., 2014. Web. 1 Dec. 2016.
“Stronger Gun Laws, Fewer Deaths”. BMJ 346.mar12 3 (2013): f1570-f1570. Web.
Vandercoy, David E. “The History of the Second Amendment “ Valparaiso Univ. Law Review 28 VAL.L.REV 1007-1039 (1994).
Thurber, Jon. “Sarah Brady, Longtime Advocate For Gun Control, Dies At 73”. Washington Post. N.p., 2015. Web. 1 Dec. 2016.
Winkler, Adam. “A Liberal Supreme Court Will Not Impact Gun Laws”. The Atlantic. N.p., 2016. Web. 1 Dec. 2016.