Anti Gun Control

Before the turn of the 20th century, guns were not an issue in the United States with many reasons contributing to this fact; however, guns have become a hot topic in the 21st century. Right-wing politicians promise to not take away citizens second amendment rights or villainize politicians who support gun control legislation. On the other hand, left-wing politicians say they will keep the American people safe and get guns out of the hands of people who will abuse the right to own a gun. With mass shootings and other gun violence polarizing American voters’ views on the second amendment, the next president needs to be aware of what the government can and cannot do in terms of legislative powers; however, the government has an interest in regulating
which weapons (i.e. guns) citizens can and cannot have. In response to recent news, the government should regulate but not prohibit access to guns and other “arms.” To understand why guns are starting to become a problem, one needs to understand what the United States Constitution says on the issue, because the document is the supreme law of the land, ultimately guiding us in the issue.
The second amendment of the Constitution says, “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.” Analysis of this clause varies depending on how one wants to interpret. For example, someone who views the amendment with the original intent of the framers’ might view the amendment as the states being able to rise up against the possibility of tyranny. If the president dispersed Congress and take away the State’s voice and choice to pass their own laws, that would be tyranny, and a state militia would be able to rise up against it with the weapons they were allowed to have. To a person who wants to read it as the amendment is written, the right to own guns should not be infringed because citizens need a well-regulated militia to protect our liberties. The difference is that the protection against tyranny is not implied in this belief. Critics believe that the Constitution should be read and interpreted as Americans now. To which, a well regulated militia is not what citizens have. Even though citizens can have certain high powered and high magazine
capable guns, the United States military far exceeds in strength with tanks, military drones, etc… If one was to imply that a well regulated militia means being able to overthrow the government in case of tyranny, then citizens should be able to purchase high grade military weapons in order to compete with the military; but the scenario does not happen, because most rational people would agree that giving citizens military grade weapons of that magnitude is a bit ludicrous. Even with the “textualist” example, one could argue as long as you can own a gun that the government can regulate. Gun laws vary from state to state, some being very libral in allowing people to own guns while others are more conservative. For example, Texas’s constitution says that “every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defense…but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime” (Texas State Constitutional Provision Art. 1, Sec.23) The Texas state government can regulate gun access in accordance to prevent crime, which has not been challenged; however, the heart of challenging gun control laws came down to one decision. Before the 20th century, gun regulation was practically non-existent. After the turn of the century, the government passes the National Firearms Act of 1934 in response of the St. Valentine’s Day massacre. The first major regulation of firearms is passed imposing a $200 tax on guns and regulating interstate commerce, such as getting purchasers to sign paperwork to obtain the gun and for the store to keep a permanent record of the purchase (Schildkraut). Since Congress has this right in section eight of Article 1 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court sides with the government after Jack Miller challenges this law. Many years after United States v. Miller, state governments and the federal government pass more laws regulating the use of firearms and which firearms can be sold. However, District of Columbia v. Heller changes some of the regulations the government could implement. The outright ban on handguns in D.C was struck down by the court. Justice Scalia, who gives the opinion of the court, defines what the second amendment says between two clauses an operative clause, which defines “bear arms” to refer to weapons outside of a militia, and the prefatory clause, which defines what the militia is defining the equivalency to Article 1 but not meaning an army nor navy (DC v Heller). By his opinion, the District of Columbia and the States cannot have a ban on handguns because of citizens right for self-defense with one of the most popular weapon choices in the United States, but Scalia also says that regulations such as criminal history, mental history, and sensitive locations are constitutional. No test was ever established in the case to test constitutionality of laws further down the road (Epstein 388). Although handguns can be dangerous, they are not an inherent threat and have a claimed purpose: self-protection. But Justice Breyer’s dissent counters Scalia’s argument claiming that that the law set in place is to counter crime in urban areas giving the law a scope limited in size and the burden placed on gun owners is proportional to restrictions in existence when the amendment was adopted (DC v Heller). Even though handguns compared to other weapons do not pose a huge threat, they are still dangerous. Under United States v. Miller, Congress can still regulate the interstate commerce and taxation of firearms. Certain firearms and certain methods of attaining guns are not banned within the United States on a Federal level, causing controversy within the last decade.
The Columbine shooting in 1999 heavily reported by media, taking the gun control argument by storm. The problem is Harris and Klebod obtained their shotguns and rifles from a gun show, not a licensed dealer, thus not under the scrutiny of laws except the person had to be above the age of 18 (Schildkraut). The gun show loophole, extending to the Internet, is how many other mass shootings such as the theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, the Sandy Hook school shooting, and the recent Orlando night club, contribute. The purchase of high power rifles such as an AR-15 over the internet or at a gun show by a person with no background check needs to end. Laws need to be enacted to prevent loose sales of guns at shows to anybody. Congress should be able to prevent this from happening because of the commerce clause, but politicians vouch they will never take away the citizen’s right to own a gun, even though they are not preventing the transaction of citizen’s to go to a licensed dealer to obtain guns. If there is still a possible way for someone to obtain a gun legally but without the mandatory background check, needless gun violence will continue to happen, because people not capable of owning a gun will continue to obtain these. People do not argue against not obtaining guns by mail order anymore since John F. Kennedy
signed into law the Gun Control Act of 1968, changing the entire game of verifying the age and criminal background of purchasers (Schildkraut). Now, the issue of gun regulation is code for taking guns away from people, especially since Republicans have struck down common sense gun laws written by politicians who have an “A-rating” from the NRA, because “each time this comes up, [the American people] are fed the excuse that common-sense reforms like background checks might not have stopped the last massacre” (Obama). People and politicians especially should lean on the side that gun regulation is not taking away the ability to own a gun, but the regulation benefits society by promoting a safer environment. Regulations need to be passed and challenged, going to the Supreme Court. Only they can decide if these regulations are constitutional are not and well within Congress’s right of power. The power to decide if a law is constitutional or not is not inherently Congress’s job to decide. Congress can regulate free speech if there is a compelling enough interest; they should be able to regulate the “right to bear arms” because of the compelling interest of protecting public safety.
Even though the Second Amendment has withheld scrutiny before the 20th Century, the technology has far exceeded the capabilities the original founding fathers had when writing the Constitution. Some weapons, just like tanks and drones, should not be in the hands of civilians. Handguns are not a huge contender in mass killings. The United States should not allow weapons that are used in war zones. Weapons like these should be scrutinized and regulated by the federal government, who has the right to do so under the interstate commerce and taxation clauses. Plus, the second amendment does not forbid the government from regulating which “arms” citizens can and cannot have. The government has an interest in protecting the liberties and safety of its citizens, and the reasons to have weapons such as AK-47s or AR-15s are not compelling enough to prohibit the government from regulating these weapons and controlling how firearms are purchase.