Gun Control and the Second Amendment, Essay Example

The objective of this persuasive research paper is to present evidence of firearm use by citizens of the United States and examine recommendations by police power and academias of how this discretionary privilege should be controlled to safeguard the security of the public. Further I will discuss the implications of controlling the use of firearms and whether the discretionary control infringes citizens rights afforded under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Let’s commence with some facts of crimes committed with the use of firearms and basic law application. “According a 1994 Department of Justice survey, about 35% of American households own 192 million firearms of which handguns constituted 35% of the total.” (“Gun Control Policy Issues”).

“In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms.” (“Federal Bureau of Investigation”). In the United States during 1997, there were approximately 7,927,000 violent crimes. Of these, 691,000 were committed with firearms.” (Uniform Crime Reports and National Crime Victimization Survey). The Brady Bill was implemented on February 28, 1994 in order to protect the public safety against those with criminal backgrounds carrying firearms. The law initially stated after making formal application to carry a firearm an applicant must wait five full days in order for the licensed dealer to run a full background check to clear the applicant’s application. “In December 1998 an amendment was made to the bill adding an ‘instant felony’ national background check because representatives stated the ‘five day waiting period’ was unconstitutional according to the Second Amendment.” (“Project Vote Smart”).

The purpose of the Second Amendment historically was to restrict the powers of the national federal government not the rights of the private individual but since the making of the original Constitution the Second Amendment has been interpreted to reflect infringement of the states and the individuals that reside in the state. This is the most controversial amendment of the Constitution today. The Dred Scott v Sanford case should be applied when interpreting the right to bear arms by all individual citizens of the U.S. because it was distinguished that the government cannot discriminate based on race, colour, creed or any other discipline. Further the Fourteenth Amendment gives rise to any infringement of gun laws because it affords equality to civil rights/human rights and personal liberties afforded by the U.S. Constitution as distinguished in Presser v Illinois where it as stated that the Second Amendment limited the power of the states to control gun laws. The national government and Congress could not.

“Crime rates in the early 1990s could be expected, ceteris paribus, to influence the stringency of gun control measures in the late 1990s. In turn, more stringent gun control in the late 1990s could be expected, ceteris paribus, to affect crime rates several years later.” (Harvey, 2008). Tragedies such as the Columbine High shootings can’t simply be blamed on the presence of guns. The lack of parental control over the guns has to be blamed for the use of guns in such Colorado tragedies. It is so much easier to blame guns than to examine the fact that most children that grow up in broken homes and receive little to no education on the harm of guns and no emotional support whilst in the home. What about the fact that parents’ allow children to watch violent television shows that promote the use of guns and killing in the most sadistic ways? Guns don’t kill alone; it is the person who uses the gun that kills!

In 1929 the Soviet Union enacted gun laws and took away the right for citizens to carry guns and over 20 million people were exterminated unable to defend themselves. In 1911 Turkish laws enacted similar gun laws and over 1.5 citizens were exterminated because of the inability to defend themselves against the government. “In 1938 Germany enacted gun control laws and 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill and others were rounded up and exterminated.” (Harvey, 2008). The same happened in Cambodia, Uganda, Guatemala and China during the years of 1935-1970. Who were gun control saws devised to protect, the public citizens or the national government?

I support the Gun Control Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of imported guns, minors from possessing guns, prohibits mentally ill from possessing guns, and prohibits those convicted of a non-business felony from possessing guns and those convicted of drug crimes from possessing guns. I further support the amendment to the Brady Bill to prohibit the five day waiting period which is against the state rights of the Second Amendment. I do think there should be uniformity amongst the state laws with regards to gun control. Some states do not adhere to laws that make it illegal to have a loaded gun within the presence of a minor child. Only seven states prohibit concealed weaponry while some states require a citizen to show a need to carry a concealed weapon. “Only the state of Vermont has no licensing or permit requirement to carry a concealed weapon.” (“Gun Control Policy Issues”). Currently the law prohibits sale to minors under the age of twenty one from gun dealers but unless state law expressly prohibits sales from private dealer a minor can go into a private dealer and purchase a gun against federal laws. Lack of uniform state regulation can also enable convicted criminals to purchase guns from private dealers. Presently the states of California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii and Maryland have enforced the prohibition of sales of ‘assault weapons’ to private citizens. Often buyers purchase handguns in bulk then resale them to private owners allowing circumvention of the ‘one gun per month’ sale making easy access to minors and felons. Cities such as New York have enacted ‘pre-emption laws’ to prohibit local authorities from passing ordinances to prohibit gun sale laws. “Officials attribute the passing of these laws in favour of the recent decline in gun related crimes.” (“Gun Control Policy Issues”). “Although background checks are no longer necessary under federal law, about half the states still use state data in addition to federal data to conduct background checks prior to issuing a handgun permit. Eleven of these states impose waiting periods as well.” (“Gun Control Policy Issues”).

U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875) still is authority to citizens having the right to bear arms. The Fourteenth Amendment cannot be legally used to justify and federal intervention of law enforcement for that should be left exclusively to the states. “While the case had no direct relevance to the Second Amendment, Waite did briefly list an individual right to bear arms among those rights that would have been protected by the federal law.” (“Gun Control Policy Issues”).  The law was declared unconstitutional as the citizens used the guns in a militia raid to kill several African Americans.  (Head, 2009). However in contrast to U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875) in U.S. v. Miller (1939) Justice James C. McReynolds distinguished that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution did not protect the rights of the citizens to bear arms because they used a sawed off shotgun in commission of the crime which was not a standard weapon. Further they were in violation of the in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934 whilst carrying the weapon across state lines to commit the crime.

The history of America relied totally on the militia to give public safety protection to the citizens of the United States but as time passed on there was not enough militia available to fight off the French and British invasions hence the military had to rely on support from civilians. Deployment of forces overseas was the last proposed resort. Since the militia never goes into a war without assistance from other militia forces but does not use civilian militia any longer is there still a need for the second clause of the Second Amendment? Well not rightfully so but the first clause of the Second Amendments still affords individual citizens the right to bear arms to protect themselves and their families from invasions of others. The right of individuals to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed still applies according to the law under the first clause of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Second Amendment expressly states, The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “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.” (“U.S. Gun Control Regulation”).

“Assuming that historical statistics is much safer than having good intentions, indications point to the fact that violent crime is down since the Brady Law (February 1994) and the assault-weapon ban (September 1994) went into effect. For example, a 1999 study by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, shows that violent juvenile crime by minors 10-17 years old was down 30 percent between 1994 and 1998, the lowest since 1988. On the surface, it seems logical to conclude that making guns more difficult to obtain will keep them from the hands of some criminals. But what does the record of past gun-control measures show?” (LaRosa, 2002).  Actually gun related crimes started a decline just two years before the Brady Bill was enacted prohibiting the sale of assault weapons. It is not the law abiding citizens that use the guns in illegal and harmful means; it is the criminals that do. Hence we should not punish the law abiding citizens from carrying guns. Research shows the mere presence of a gun is a deterrent for criminal activity. “Criminologist John Lott from the University of Florida found that 98 percent of the time when people use guns defensively, simply brandishing a firearm is sufficient to cause a criminal to break off an attack. Lott also found that in less than 2 percent of the cases is the gun fired, and three-fourths of those are warning shots.” (LaRosa, 2002). Further research shows that shooting sprees are normally stopped by the presence of civilians with handguns on the scene. “In an article published in the August 3, 1999, edition of the San Antonio Express-News, Sowell recounts an incident that occurred in July 1999 at a shooting range in San Mateo, California, where a man armed with a handgun took three hostages. A note said he was going to kill the hostages and then himself. An employee took a gun from the range and shot the gunman, freeing the hostages.” (LaRosa, 2002).

Some citizens argue that the police are here to protect us from violent crime. But it has been reported that often the police in larger citizens refuse to be associated with potential ‘gang related’ criminal activities for fearing for their own lives. When the gun control law was passed in 1968 the number of robberies across the United States rose from 138, 000 to 368,000 during that year. In New York City on about 19% of the murder crimes involve the use of pistols which are the gun of choice for private citizens. This shows that the criminals are the ones committing the crimes not the innocent citizens purchasing guns to protect themselves. Criminals are purchasing guns illegally on the streets from crooked or illegal gun sellers. New Hampshire currently has ‘almost little to no gun control laws’ in force and is reported to be one of the safest places to reside with relation to crime statistics. Vermont is one of the least restrictive states with relation to gun control laws and has one of the lowest crime rates of all the United States. Twelve months after gun control laws were passed in the United States the rates of gun related crimes rose tremendously in Australia. England has the most stringent of all gun control laws effectively eliminating the carrying of guns by citizens and police officers. “In recent months there have been a frightening number of shootings in Britain’s major cities, despite new laws Firearms Act of 1997 banning gun ownership after the Dunblane tragedy. Our investigation established that guns are available through means open to any criminally minded individual.” (LaRosa, 2002). Australia, Canada and Britain have the strictest gun control laws and despite these reforms they have the highest crime rates which represent the criminals are still finding means to obtain guns illegally. Gun control laws do not eliminate crime for they eliminate legal means of criminals obtaining guns.

“Federal courts have never found a gun law that has violated the Second Amendment.” (Cohen, 2000).  While the NRA emphasizes only the last 14 words, the U.S. Supreme Court and appeals courts have focused on “well-regulated militia” and “security of a free State” to rule that Second Amendment rights are reserved to states and their militias – nowadays, the National Guards.” (Cohen, 2000). Liberalists argue that the Second Amendment does not ‘confer’ right upon citizens to bear arms as distinguished in Miller (1939). In Hickman it was inaccurately reported that the U.S. Supreme court never officially ruled on the relation of the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. The Supreme Court either is inaccurately interpreting the Second Amendment or does not want to interpret it at all. With this said the gun control laws are discretionary and applicable to each state’s laws. Most Americans are pro-gun control. It is apparent that the media is quite bias with both sides of gun control not advertising for reforms of much needed amendment. “Though statistics show over 40% of the American public are in favour of banning handgun sales all together such a constitutional proposal would never pass in Congress because that is just too extreme.” (Cohen, 2000). The media is famous for airing the demise of situations involving handgun and rifle assault weapon participation but they do not report statistics that encumber the fact that the purchase of handguns from law abiding citizens are not relative to these crimes. Some say this is simply journalistic instinct not bias that gives rise to this reporting but I say it is just a means of getting publicity to the reporter and the news station. The poverty level is all too much ignored as a contributing factor to violence and hand guns in America.

References

1997 Uniform Crime Reports. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Table 2.11 Calculations performed with data from:

a) “1997 Uniform Crime Reports.” Federal Bureau of Investigation. Table 2.11.
b) “National Crime Victimization Survey – Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1997 Statistical Tables.” United States Department of Justice. Table 66.

Project Vote Smart. Viewed in January of 1999 on the Project Vote-Smart web site, http://www.vote-smart.org/

Harvey, P. (2008) Retrieved November 29, 2009 from, http://home.comcast.net/~shooter2_indy/essays/paulharvey.html

Gun Control Policy Issues (2009) Retrieved November 29, 2009 from, http://www.newsbatch.com/guncontrol.htm

Head, T. (2009) Does the Second Amendment Protect the Right to Bear Arms? Retrieved November 29, 2009 from, http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/i/2ndamendment.htm

U.S. Gun Control Legislation (2008) Retrieved November 29, 2009 from, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/U.S._gun_control_legislation

LaRosa, B. (2002) Can Gun Control Reduce Crime-Part 1 Retrieved November 29, 2009 from, http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp

Cohen, J. (2000) Gun Control, the NRA and the Second Amendment Retrieved November 29, 2009 from, http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2587