1. No category

Gun Control
Related Subjects
Listen
Full Text:
The United States is the leader in per-capita gun deaths among industrial nations. This unenviable
distinction has resulted in various gun-control laws at the federal and state levels that seek to reduce
crime and violence by restricting private gun ownership. Supporters of gun control would like even
tighter restrictions on the sale and circulation of firearms. But they face fierce opposition from citizen
groups and arms manufacturers who are trying to protect what they view as the right to own and bear
firearms for self-defense and recreational activities. These groups aim to prevent new legislation, and if
possible, roll back the laws already on the books.
The Constitutional Framework
Discussions about citizens’ rights to bear arms extend back to ancient times. Political theorists from
Cicero of ancient Rome to John Locke (1632–1704) of England and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778)
of France viewed the possession of arms as a symbol of personal freedom and an indispensable element
of popular government.
Similar sentiments were echoed in the Federalist Papers, a series of essays written by the supporters of
the Constitution to explain and defend the document. In the Federalist No. 46, James Madison observed
that Americans would never have to fear the power of the federal government because of “the
advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation.” Patrick
Henry declared, “The great principle is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
Samuel Adams argued that the Constitution should never be interpreted “to prevent the people of the
United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” Accordingly, when adding the
Bill of Rights to the Constitution, the founders included the Second Amendment, which reads, “A wellregulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The precise meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment has been an issue of major controversy.
Gun control advocates argue that when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, each state
maintained a militia, composed of ordinary citizens who served as part-time soldiers. These militias were
“well-regulated”—subject to state requirements concerning training, firearms, and periodic military
exercises. Fearing that the federal government would use its standing army to force its will on the
states, the authors of the Second Amendment intended to protect the state militias’ right to bear arms.
According to gun control supporters, in modern times, the amendment should protect only the states’
right to arm their own military forces, including their National Guard units.
Opponents of gun control interpret the Second Amendment as the guarantee of a personal right to keep
and bear arms. They claim that the amendment protects the general public, who were viewed as part of
the general militia, as distinguished from the “select militia” controlled by the state. By colonial law,
every household was required to possess arms and every male of military age was required to be ready
for military emergencies, bearing his own arms. The amendment, in guaranteeing the arms of each
citizen, simultaneously guaranteed arms for the militia. Furthermore, gun control opponents feel that
the words “right of the people” in the Second Amendment hold the same meaning as they do in the First
Amendment, where they describe an individual right (such as freedom of assembly).
Standing in fierce opposition to any and all efforts to restrict gun sales and ownership is the National
Rifle Association (NRA). The leading pro-gun group in the United States, the NRA is dedicated to
protecting an individual right to bear arms. The NRA bases its view on the Second Amendment and
insists that its stand is consistent with the intentions of the nation’s founders. The NRA believes that any
form of gun control will eventually lead to a complete ban on the private possession of firearms.
Court Decisions
For many years, the US Supreme Court generally restricted the right of individuals “to keep and bear
Arms.” In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court upheld a federal law forbidding the interstate
transportation of an unregistered sawed-off shotgun. The Court concluded that the Second Amendment
did not apply to this case because no evidence existed in the record that this type of arm was “any part
of ordinary military equipment” or that its use could “contribute to the common defense.” The
amendment’s purpose, according to the Court, was to “assure the continuation and render possible the
effectiveness” of the state militia. In two other rulings, the Supreme Court reaffirmed this view in
upholding New Jersey’s tough gun control law in 1969 (Burton v. Sills) and in supporting the federal ban
on possession of firearms by felons in 1980 (Lewis v. United States).
The Miller ruling established a foundation for more than thirty subsequent lower court decisions on the
meaning of the Second Amendment. The lower courts reaffirmed the interpretation of the Second
Amendment as a limited states-rights measure, relating only to individuals in active, controlled state
guard or militia units. An exception to this trend occurred in 1999. In United States v. Emerson, US
district judge for Northern Texas Sam R. Cummings upheld the right of a man under a temporary
restraining order to retain his firearms under the protection of the Second Amendment. The US Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, however, overturned this ruling in 2001.
The Supreme Court reversed course in 2008 in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller. The
Court ruled in Heller that the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from making it
illegal for private individuals to keep loaded handguns in their homes. It was the first Supreme Court
decision ever to explicitly rule that the Second Amendment protects an individual, personal right to keep
and bear arms. Heller was a major development in the law, but it left many questions unanswered. For
example, it is not clear whether the Second Amendment would also prohibit state governments from
passing laws like the federal law at issue in that case.
Gun Control Laws
Gun control laws have several functions. They may be designed to hinder certain people from gaining
access to any firearms. The laws may limit possession of certain types of weapons to the police and the
military. A person who wants to make a gun purchase or obtain a gun license may be subject to a
waiting period. Gun-control laws vary from country to country. In Britain, the national government
exercises strict control, requiring all gun owners to be licensed and to obtain permits to buy
ammunition. In Australia, states enact their own laws in accordance with guidelines from the federal
government. Some countries, such as Japan and New Zealand, are working to pass tougher gun-control
legislation.
In the United States, the lack of agreement on gun control has led to a wide variety of state and local
laws regarding licensing and registration of handguns. In most states, as long as a person has not been
convicted of a felony, he or she can receive a permit to carry a loaded and concealed handgun. About 50
percent of all homes in the United States contain at least one firearm. More than half of these are
loaded or have ammunition stored with the gun. The National Institute of Justice estimated that, in the
year 2011, 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robberies, and 21 percent of aggravated assaults that
were committed in the United States were committed with firearms. It also estimated that 467,321
people were the victims of crimes committed with guns in 2011. According to a study conducted by
Johns Hopkins University, stricter requirements on registration and licensing would prevent criminals
from buying guns.
The first major federal gun law went into effect in 1934. It restricted the sale and ownership of high-risk
weapons such as machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. Congress passed the 1968 Gun Control Act in
the wake of the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Senator Robert F. Kennedy. In addition to
ending mail-order sales of all firearms and ammunition, the law banned the sale of guns to felons,
fugitives from justice, minors, the mentally ill, those dishonorably discharged from the armed forces,
those who have left the United States to live in another country, and illegal aliens.
Although the 1968 law established a foundation for subsequent gun control legislation, it was flawed by
its “honor system” enforcement scheme. It required prospective purchasers to sign a statement of
eligibility to buy a gun, but most states did not follow up to confirm the claims. This weakness was
addressed in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Named in honor of James Brady, the press
secretary to President Ronald Reagan who suffered a near-fatal wound during the attempt on Reagan’s
life in 1981, the Brady Law became effective in 1994. It required a five-day waiting period for all
handgun sales, during which a background check was to be made on all prospective purchasers. This
provision expired in 1998 and was replaced by the National Instant Check System (NICS), an on-the-spot
computer scan for any criminal record on the part of the buyer of any type of gun.
Following passage of the Brady Law, aggravated assaults involving firearms declined 12.4 percent
between 1994 and 1999. The Justice Department reported that background checks also prevented more
than five hundred thousand people with criminal records from legally purchasing a gun during that time.
In addition, violent crimes committed with guns decreased by 35 percent between 1992 and 2000.
Another major landmark in gun control was President George H. W. Bush’s 1989 ban on importing
assault rifles. In 1990 the number of imported assault rifles traced to crime dropped 45 percent. In 1994,
a federal ban on assault weapons outlawed the manufacture and sale of the nineteen most lethal
assault weapons and various duplicates. The following year, the number of assault weapons traced to
crime declined 18 percent.
Although legislation has had some effect on gun violence in the United States, a series of loopholes
enables many people who do not meet the legal requirements to obtain guns. For example, the law
does not require adults to store guns out of the reach of children. Private collectors can get around the
Brady Law’s background-check requirement by selling their wares at private gun shows, and individuals
can buy some guns on the Internet without a background check. Federal law and most state laws still
allow juveniles to purchase “long guns,” which include hunting rifles, shotguns, semiautomatic AK-47s,
AR-15s, and other assault rifles manufactured before 1994. Finally, the database for the national
“instant-check” system lacks data in many categories, especially in non-felony areas such as domestic
violence and mental health.
Some of the most dramatic and tragic effects of loopholes have been evident in gun-related school
violence. In 1999, two high school students in Littleton, Colorado, obtained shotguns and other weapons
and killed thirteen people before turning the guns on themselves. The weapons were bought from
private sellers at gun shows. In 2007, a college student shot and killed thirty-two people at Virginia Tech
University before turning his weapon on himself. His history of mental illness had not prevented him
from purchasing the semiautomatic pistols used in the shooting. At the time, this incident was the
deadliest mass shooting in US history and sparked further debate on the issue of gun control.
Incidents Spark Calls for Reform
In 2011, a gunman shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in the head and killed six people—including a
nine-year-old girl—in an Arizona grocery store parking lot during a political rally. In December of 2012, a
twenty-year-old killed twenty-six people—twenty first-grade students and six adults—at Sandy Hook
Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, before killing himself. He also killed his mother that day.
He used guns stored at his mother’s home, and he also had a history of mental illness.
These incidents reopened the gun control debate in the country. After the Sandy Hook shooting,
President Barack Obama launched plans to address gun violence and reform gun control laws to prevent
innocent people from being killed by guns. The president introduced a bill proposing expanding
background checks and banning military-style assault weapons. After a lengthy recovery, Giffords and
her husband, Mark Kelly, a former astronaut, joined the fight for gun control reform. Giffords and Kelly
were gun owners and defenders of the Second Amendment. They didn’t want to take away the right to
own guns, but they did want to control who could purchase guns and what types of guns could be
owned. They testified in front of Congress in January of 2013, asking the government to consider
tougher background checks on those who want to purchase guns and a ban on certain weapons. In April
of 2013, Obama’s bill failed to pass the Senate. Even though the bill didn’t pass, the president, Giffords
and Kelly, and many others vowed to continued the fight to reform gun control laws in the United
States.
Source Citation (MLA 7th Edition)
"Gun Control." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints In
Context. Web. 4 May 2015.
URL
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CPC3010999212&v=2.1&u=vale41196&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w
&asid=824dfaa9275d64c1dc69a401cdb506b4