Gun Control. Out of Control?
‘Murder of 49 people in an Orlando nightclub.’
‘Massacre of 20 children and six adults at an elementary school in Newton, Connecticut.’
These and several other headlines have seen tears, protests, condemnation and then an eventual silence. The issues of Gun Control resurface, are debated and are then met with limited success. Whilst the topic may have been discussed threadbare, silence toward it may just appear just as deadly as a gunshot. Gun Control has its fair share of ‘those for’ and ‘those against’ and a deeper dive into the issue can persist to provide better context for better action. While racial, psychological and legal factors, all play an essential role in gun regulation, this essay focusses on the legal factors that have either positively or negatively impacted gun regulation and safety. The legal factors can be further advocated in three parts. First, the three pieces of legislation that have framed the current gun laws. Next, an in-depth look into the Second Amendment with a case that led to a change in the interpretation of the Amendment, and lastly, the three acts that have severely compromised safety.
First, The three pieces of legislation that have set the framework for the current gun laws: The Gun control act of 1968; The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986; and The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention act of 1993. The Gun Control Act of 1968 shaped the rules for firearm sales, added new prohibitions targeted at select guns and ensured that guns were not sold to criminals or mentally unstable people. This act tightened gun laws and worked positively to ensure that guns were entering the right hands if they had to enter hands at all. Approximately 20 years later, the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 was established, as an amendment to the Gun control Act of 1968. However, the impact of this law saw more harm than good, as it resulted in an easy to sell guns without a license and an increase in the difficulty to convict gun sellers. The harder it became to convict gun sellers, higher was the likelihood of guns being used for harmful purposes. Money played its evil role in exchanging hands between gun sellers, with limited liability and criminals. The third act occurred just a few years later, with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention act of 1993. This act increased the background check requirements for licensed dealers, and it established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. However, the fault lines of this act were exposed as it did not require background checks for a private transfer, as this could lead to an illegal transfer of guns to criminals. All guns manufactured and sold lawfully, could, however, through various methods, find their way to the illegal market, and consequently into wrong hands. These private transactions occur when a legal owner illegally sells their gun to a criminal, or then through straw buying, which is when individuals buy guns and transfer them to prohibited persons, and lastly, theft. It only takes one gun in the wrong hands to take a life or more. Tracking guns that enter into these hands through unlawful means becomes increasingly harder.
The three acts mentioned above, along with other federal laws, constitute the federal gun laws. Noteworthy though is that no background checks take place for private transactions. Nevertheless, State Governments do have the power to enforce different rules limited to just their state. Some of these rules include additional standards for ownership, which means owning guns becomes a more selective process which allows for background checks of private sales, which aids in the blocking of illegal transfers, and public carrying laws, which stops people from carrying guns in many places. A further breaking down of gun laws reveals local laws which derive laws for specific communities. They do, however, have much less power than the State and Federal Governments and most of their power can be checked by preemption (when laws between two levels of Government -e.g. State and Local Governments, come into conflict. The law from the higher level of Government is usually successful). States across America have all enforced different rules and these rules have seen either positive or negative results, depending on how strictly they have been enforced. For example, while a mass shooting event has claimed the lives of four or more people every 47 days since June 2015, States with tighter gun laws, such as Hawaii, have not faced a mass shooting since 1999. States with looser gun laws, such as Florida, have had six mass shooting in just the past three years. It is evident from this data that tighter gun laws positively correlate with lower mass shootings, proving consequently with a noticeable reason as to why tighter gun laws can save lives.
Secondly, it is fundamental to discuss the genesis of gun laws which is the Second Amendment of the Constitution Bill of Rights. “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.” The interpretation of the Amendment, however, has changed over the years based on the verdicts of Supreme Court cases. One landmark Supreme Court case occurred in 2008.- the District of Columbia v Heller. District of Columbia v Heller was brought about by a lawsuit filed by a security guard named Dick Heller who lived in Washington DC. Heller worked as a courthouse guard and was allowed to have a gun at his place of work; however, he was not allowed to have a gun at home. Heller resided in a neighbourhood with a high crime level and believed that his gun would ensure his protection. The Washington DC law states that it was illegal for civilians to have a handgun in their home for personal defence. This prompted Heller to file a lawsuit against the District of Columbia arguing that it was a violation of his Second Amendment right. This Supreme Court’s ruling became an essential part of history as it was the first Supreme Court case to declare that the Second Amendment protects an individual the right to bear arms. However, many questions still remain unanswered, such as, the right of the American people to carry a gun in public and what kind of firearms should be permitted. Looking at statistics where 40,000 have lost their lives to a bullet in the United States in 2017 alone: 60% of the lives taken were done so by suicide, 30% by homicide, 1.4% by legal intervention, 1.2% unintentional, and the remaining undetermined, it should be clear that guns should not be allowed to be carried as this increases the chance of homicides, unintentional deaths, and even possibly theft. The question should not be what kind of guns should be allowed but instead, if they should be allowed at all.
Lastly, three acts have worked as a massive infringement of advancing gun control and safety. In 2005, President Bush signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This act reduced liability for gun makers and sellers and consequently, took away compensation for the victims of gun violence. With no liability for gun makers and sellers, they are protected against illegal activities, Limited background checks of customers increase the likelihood of guns being misused in the wrong hands. Additionally, there are pieces of legalisation have been created to increase the difficulty of gun control. They are the Dickey Amendment from 1996, which states “None of the funds made available for injury, prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control”, and the Tiahrt Amendment from 2003 which limited the availability of crime gun trace data, prohibiting the ATF from requiring firearm dealers to do an inventory of their firearms as part of compliance inspections, and required the FBI to
destroy background check data within 24 hours after a background check was completed. Both these acts made in increasingly hard to promote gun control, and it made it easier for criminals to access firearms. Acts like these severely compromises safety in order to maintain freedom. A line needs to be drawn. While freedom is the basis of the Constitution, safety cannot be the cost. The framers of the Constitution did not aim for the Second Amendment to become a reason for people to carry and improperly use guns.
The framers of the Constitution did not aim for an average of 40,000 people losing their lives every year. The framers of the Constitution did not aim to compromise safety. It is essential that new legalisation and interpretation of the Second Amendment be considered with a view that thinks about the safety of the people of America. Its time to pull the trigger at the gun.
-
Wiebe DJ. Homicide and suicide risks associated with firearms in the home: A national case-control study. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2003;41(6):771–782. https:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196064403002567. doi: 10.1067/mem.2003.187.
Brendan G. Carr, Gali Porat, Douglas J. Wiebe, Charles C. Branas. A review of legislation restricting the intersection of firearms and alcohol in the U.S. Public Health Reports (1974-). 2010;125(5):674–679. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41434824.
Casey, B.J., Ph.D.|Jones, Rebecca M., M.S. Neurobiology of the adolescent brain and behavior: Implications for substance use disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2010;49(12):1189–1201. https://www.clinicalkey.es/playcontent/1-s2.0-S0890856710006702.
Rostron A. The dickey amendment on federal funding for research on gun violence: A legal dissection. American journal of public health. 2018;108(7):865–867. https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29874513.
LYNDON HAVILAND, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR, https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/460195-congress-cant-even-study-gun-violence-unless-it-changes-the- law, September 2019
Photo by Jay Rembert on Unsplash