Summary:
The
debate on the legalization of firearms in America is generally viewed as being
one side saying firearms promote criminal behavior the other side saying
possessing firearms serves to protect and prevent criminal behavior. It is no
secret that most American’s get their information from the media and
consequently their conclusions and opinions are being influenced by an overly
simplistic view of firearms and crime.
Due
in large part to the ignorance of the average citizen, proposed solutions for
reducing firearm crimes are very broad and sweeping. For example the book
mentions “ban all guns”, “allow all teachers to possess guns”. The two main views in reducing gun violence
are: 1. reducing the number of guns in circulation. 2. Increasing the cost of
illegally possessing firearms. Each view faces problems. First, the fact that
there are over 270 million guns in America make any attempts at removing guns
from society nearly impossible. Second, there are already numerous state and
federal laws regulating who may purchase gun, what type of guns, and who may
carry guns. I will now simply list the general points made in this article.
·
America
has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world
·
The
majority of those killed by firearms are those whom commit suicide
·
The
firearm most commonly used to commit crimes are handguns
·
Homicides
in America were decreasing as the number of guns purchased were increasing
·
There
are numerous factors other than just gun ownership that play a role in violent
crimes
·
Most
of the legislation regulating firearms was the result of some crime that the
media reported extensively on. Also, there are numerous interest groups that
flood Washington and state governments with lobbyists in hopes of passing
legislation in favor of their cause.
·
The
regulation of specific handguns led many to modify more powerful and deadly
weapons such as shotguns.
·
One
problem with pushing for the regulation of who may buy a gun is that those who
are more likely to commit crimes do not acquire guns lawfully, therefore those
most affected by such regulations are those less likely to commit crimes.
·
Research
how found in some states that outlawed gun ownership by felons, domestic
violence offenders, and drug abusers showed a significant drop in suicides and
intimate partner homicides.
·
Regulations
that limit the use of firearms or require proper storage have an adverse effect
on those who need to use their gun for self-defense.
·
Studies
have found that such regulation as mentioned above have not had any effect in
reducing accidental deaths.
·
A
study conducted by the CDC concluded that gun control legislation had no
significant impact on violence rates
·
Community
policing approaches that have been made in dealing with gun problems have been
somewhat effective in some areas and non-effective in others.
·
Integrated
approaches to removing firearms have seen some success and seem to be a step in
the right direction
Reflection:
In
2007 the United States Supreme Court, for the first time, analyzed and
interpreted the meaning of the 2nd amendment and identified any
rights protected under it. The opinion issued in District of Columbia v. Heller
made it clear that the 2nd amendment guarantees a right to possess a
firearm in the home. Finally the debate regarding the control and regulation of
firearms had a judicial foundation in which future argument could stem from. However,
it’s important to note that the ruling handed down in this case applied only to
the federal government and Washington D.C. not the states themselves. Whether
or not the rights under the 2nd amendment were applicable to the
states was addressed in 2009 via McDonald v. Chicago. Justice Alito wrote the
opinion for the majority and he explained the courts rationale for
incorporating the provisions of the 2nd amendment and applying them
to the states under the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
The significance of these two landmark cases is that now there is a fundamental
constitutional right to possess a firearm in the home for purposes of
self-defense.
The
effect these two rulings had on the debates over gun control are greatly
significant. However, the court also held that the right to bear arms was not
unlimited. Essentially states are still free to regulate who may buy a gun, who
may carry a gun in public, what types of guns are allowed to be sold, and where
a person may carry a gun. Pertaining to this article, any argument in support
of sweeping legislation to remove all guns from circulation is dead.
Furthermore, any legislation regulating firearm possession that infringes on an
individual’s right to bear arms must have a significant and legitimate state
interest in order to be valid. To put it plainly, if a state passes a law that
prohibits or regulates any aspect an individual’s right to have a gun it must pass
the strict scrutiny test, meaning that the state must show that the law serves
a compelling interest. A good example would be prohibiting felons from
purchasing a handgun, but prohibiting a law abiding citizen in which the
compelling state interest of the law is not geared towards is unconstitutional.
The
statistical analysis of crimes involving a firearm is not relevant in firearm
regulation, at least for now anyways. In other words even if a city presents
empirical evidence that crimes involving firearms have increased 60% since 2009,
the state may not prohibit everyone from having a gun. Having that been said the debate over gun
control is made even narrower. The rulings have been handed down and it is
highly unlikely that the court would not continue is general adherence to
stare’ decisis when similar cases are presented.
I
felt the need to mention all the above material because it makes some other the
issues discussed in the chapter now irrelevant.
No comments:
Post a Comment