Regulating the Purchases of Firearms, Essay Example

It is essential to tighten standards utilized to regulate the purchases of firearms in the United States.  The United States has seen a number of consequences when firearms are obtained by the wrong people.  Furthermore, Kleck and Hogan have undermined the belief that gun ownership has a strong link to homicidal behavior, citing an “unstable relationship” at best.  However, this does not undermine the right to bear arms, but points to the stricter standards that need to be implemented.  In the United States, regulating the purchases of firearms is an important step in improving the safety of citizens, which is something that must incur to uphold the integrity of the nation’s safety and the right to bear and keep arms.

The Constitutional Right to Bear Arms

In the conversation of purchasing firearms, the topic of that of keeping and bearing arms is normally present.  The debates have continued to rage on on these points, resulting in this issue accounting for more disagreement and less understanding, according to Cottrol, than any other current issue of the United States Constitution (p. 286).  This is a popular point of debate upon which gun control is found, in the right to keep and bear arms as seen in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights that protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms (Constitution of the United States).  This is an individual right that is inherent in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  This must be noticed if we are to address the right of an individual to keep and bear arms as a citizen of the United States.

Critics

Critics who oppose the right to bear arms point to the point of the militia in the Second Amendment.  Others do not hold that it is an individual right to keep and bear arms.  While these counterarguments are many, they fail to recognize the basic right that is given in the Second Amendment.  Such oversights greatly undermine the current positions, if we are to move past this basic point to approach the regulation of firearms.  We must look past these shortcomings to uphold the right to bear arms.

Supreme Court

In addressing such counterarguments, it is important to give the Supreme Court’s rulings on such advances.  The Court has upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms, as seen in the Emerson decision.  The Constitutional right to keep and bear arms was made clearly relevant by the Court in this decision (Uviller p. 246-247).

In the Emerson decision, the denial of the “militia” reference was made clear.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated:

There are numerous instances of the phrase “bear arms” being used to describe a civilian’s carrying of arms.  Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the “people” “to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state,” or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage “bear arms” was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service.

Spitzer

This important determination clearly grounds in the right for individuals to keep and bear arms, which is not to be confused with any attempts to confine it to a militia-based interpretation, made by many critics who battle the right to keep and bear arms.

Regulating Firearms

The Supreme Court has also clarified another matter pertaining to firearms.  The Amendment does not mean that one has the absolute right, meaning any person may have this unrestricted right.  In 2008, Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the right to bear arms is in fact not unlimited, and it is subject to reasonable prohibitions and regulations that have been supported in various rulings (Volokh).

Regulation without Undermining the Right to Bear Arms

While critics to gun rights may attack the constitutional nature of the right to bear arms, as previously seen, this is not where the focus should be.  As seen in the previous supporting facts, there is a right for individuals to keep and bear arms.  While this is not absolute, it is present in the United States.

Thus the focus should be driven away from this point.  The essence of the problem is found in the regulation of firearms.  While eliminating people’s rights to keep and bear firearms may do something to the safety of individuals in the United States, this is not the answer, as this right is protected by the United States Constitution.  The answer is seen in regulating the purchasing of firearms in the United States.

Further Methods of Regulation Purchases of Firearms

The heart of the matter is found in regulating the purchases of firearms.  In the United States, individuals have the basic, but not unlimited, right to keep and bear firearms.  However, in addressing the dangerous nature of firearms in the hands of many citizens, we must look for better regulations in selling such items.

It is clear that more rules need to be in place for obtaining firearms.  The current rules that are in place for purchasing firearms in the United States are beneficial, such as registering a weapon and other rules.  However, we must identify further methods to ensure that firearms aren’t placed in the wrong hands.  Perhaps lawmakers can, for instance, make it more difficult for individuals with a criminal record to obtain firearms legally.  Certainly such individuals should not be able to obtain firearms without a number of objectives met to ensure safety in the community.

Further protection should be targeted for families.  It is unfortunate to see the cases where children get their hands on firearms in the home.  Such costs to improve the safety of children and family exceeds financial costs in regulatory and other interventions that could be imposed (Cook and Ludwig).  Stricter regulations could educate and ensure that precautions are taken in the homes across the United States.

Regulations should thus comprehensively identify changes from all aspect of the purchasing of firearms.  Not only should it be more comprehensive for those obtaining firearms, but in subsequent actions as well, such as informing and following up with consumers regarding safety methods for storing firearms.

Conclusion

The debate is too greatly centered on whether individuals actually have the right to keep and bear arms.  As seen in this analysis, it is clear that individuals do have this right.  The Supreme Court has ruled on this matter, identifying this right and rejecting the limiting scope of the militia that critics tend to bring up in such debates.  Clearly we cannot attempt to undermine this fundamental right in our desire to improve safety.

We should spend time identifying further and more comprehensive regulations to the purchasing of firearms in the United States.  We cannot let firearms enter the hands of individuals who have demonstrated less-than-desirable behavior, nor can firearms enter homes that aren’t safe for children.  Whether it is education, stricter regulations, or preferably both of these matters, experts and lawmakers must come together to ensure that firearms are being owned as safely as possible.  This is an important step in safeguarding both the constitutional right to bear arms and the individuals across America.

Works Cited

Constitution of the United States. “Amendment 2 – Bearing Arms.” Congressional Research Service, Analysis and Interpretation: 2002 Edition. Web. Retrieved 7-18-2010.

Cook, Philip and Ludwig, Jens. “The Costs of Gun Violence against Children.” The Future of Children Summer – Autumn 2002: 86-69. Print.

Cottrol, Robert. Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the Second Amendment. New York: Taylor & Francis, 1994.

Kleck, Gary and Hogan, Michael. “National Case-Control Study of Homicide Offending and Gun Ownership.” Social Problems May 1999: 275-293. Print.

Spitzer, Robert. The Politics of Gun Control. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2008.

Uviller, Richard. The Militia and the Right to Arms. Chapel Hill, NC: Duke University Press, 2002.

Volokh, Eugene. “The Volokh Conspiracy – Yet Another Early Post-Heller Second Amendment Case.” 7-8-2008. Web. Retrieved 7-18-2010.