Congressional
Gun Control Overview
Prevalence of Gun Use and the Regulatory Response
T
hrough the years, legislative proposals to restrict the availability of firearms to the public have raised the following questions: What restrictions on firearms are permissible under the Constitution? Does gun control constitute crime control? Can the Nation’s rates of homicide, robbery, and assault be reduced by the stricter regulation of firearms commerce or ownership? Would restrictions stop attacks on public figures or thwart deranged persons and terrorists? Would household, street corner, and schoolyard disputes be less lethal if firearms were more difficult and expensive to acquire? Would more restrictive gun control policies have the unintended effect of impairing citizens’ means of self-defense?
In recent years, proponents of gun control legislation have often held that only Federal laws can be effective in the United States. Otherwise, they say, States with few restrictions will continue to be sources of guns that flow illegally into more-restrictive States. They believe that the
Second Amendment to the Constitution, which States that
“[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,” is being misread in today’s modern society.
They argue that the Second Amendment (1) is now obsolete, with the presence of professional police forces;
(2) was intended solely to guard against suppression of
State militias by the central government and is therefore restricted in scope by that intent; and (3) does not guarantee a right that is absolute, but rather one that can be limited by reasonable requirements. They ask why in today’s modern society a private citizen needs any firearm that is not designed primarily for hunting or other recognized sporting purposes.
Proponents of firearms restrictions have advocated policy changes on specific types of firearms or
Prevalence of Gun Use and the Regulatory Response
T
hrough the years, legislative proposals to restrict the availability of firearms to the public have raised the following questions: What restrictions on firearms are permissible under the Constitution? Does gun control constitute crime control? Can the Nation’s rates of homicide, robbery, and assault be reduced by the stricter regulation of firearms commerce or ownership? Would restrictions stop attacks on public figures or thwart deranged persons and terrorists? Would household, street corner, and schoolyard disputes be less lethal if firearms were more difficult and expensive to acquire? Would more restrictive gun control policies have the unintended effect of impairing citizens’ means of self-defense?
In recent years, proponents of gun control legislation have often held that only Federal laws can be effective in the United States. Otherwise, they say, States with few restrictions will continue to be sources of guns that flow illegally into more-restrictive States. They believe that the
Second Amendment to the Constitution, which States that
“[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,” is being misread in today’s modern society.
They argue that the Second Amendment (1) is now obsolete, with the presence of professional police forces;
(2) was intended solely to guard against suppression of
State militias by the central government and is therefore restricted in scope by that intent; and (3) does not guarantee a right that is absolute, but rather one that can be limited by reasonable requirements. They ask why in today’s modern society a private citizen needs any firearm that is not designed primarily for hunting or other recognized sporting purposes.
Proponents of firearms restrictions have advocated policy changes on specific types of firearms or