Nra Gun Reform
Gun Reforms and the NRA: Both a Misfire
Can Gun Control and the Civil Liberties issues be reconciled before the Second Amendment is Amended or ruled on by the Supreme Courts?
Our Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights had created a virtual war over guns and gun ownership in the United States for more than two centuries. It reads The Second Amendment provides: "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." It is the only amendment written with a purported purpose. The only one with a preamble or perhaps an observation that; a well-regulated militia is a necessity for the security of a free state, and an objective or a legality that: the right …show more content…
to bear arms will not be infringed upon. “But the fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing.”(Barack Obama, 2013) President Obama has issued twenty-three Executive Orders on Gun Control after the tragedy in Sandy Hook, where an AR15 was the weapon that took 36 lives before the shooter successfully turned the barrel on himself. The nation seems to be completely divided on this matter with a recent Gallop Poll on gun control reforms that resulted in a fairly narrow margin. When asked if they would want their Congressman to vote in favor of the Executive proposals 53% responded yes, with 41 % voting against the reform (7% refused/don’t know).? Until there is clear construction on the interpretation of the Second Amendment, how can we move further in regulations without long, legal repercussions ensuing? The NRA, as a powerful opponent, and our elected Chief of Office are among the two most influential bodies in the nation, so how are their elucidations at the extreme opposite of each other on the same court proceedings? Even though the Second Amendment was ruled on in Heller V District of Columbia, and did set some precedents that could be used a stare decisis, clarification of the Supreme Court on the federal boundaries and individual rights for gun ownership is desperately needed. The National Rifle Associations’ views stem from Second Amendment verbiage that the right to bear arms is a God given, natural liberty protected by our Bill Of Rights. Wayne LaPierre , Chief Executive Officer of the organization recently stated in a speech to Western Hunting and Conservation Expo for gun and hunting enthusiasts in Salt Lake City, “What they are serious about is banning, taxing and taking what they want. And leaving you, the average citizen all over our great country, as the first and least capable person in society of being able to defend yourself.”(February, 2013). He also explains that a movement to limit high capacity magazines and semi-automatic guns is equal to limiting a person’s ability to defend themselves. Mr. La Pierre contends the proposal of a universal background check for all purchasers of guns and ammunitions by dealers to the National Instant Check System is a fallacy that will allow a registry of gun owners. The registry will then be used to as a means for confiscating firearms held by law-abiding citizens. In Amicus Curiae briefs submitted by the NRA in U.S. V Emerson(1999) attorney Robert Dowlut fought for the respect and acknowledgment in the courts for rights of the Second Amendment to individuals, and not just a militia. The brief includes the rulings on the case of Miller v District of Columbia and his presentation states what the courts do NOT say in their ruling. For instance, he recognizes the Courts decision does not say that military weapons alone are protected by the Second Amendment, but that weapons under protection must have the ability to contribute to “the common defense”, relating that it [the Court] also does not say only foreign invaders comprehend to “the common defense” and therefore allows privately owned firearms to be useful against domestic rebellion, and self-defense from criminal attacks. He then exclaims the Courts did not accept the repeated suggestion of the government in the case that the militia means a military organization, such as the Marines. Dowalt also surmises that the Miller Case embraced the protection of the individual’s right to keep and bear arms, citing it was inferred by the Court never asking of the defendant’s status as members of the military, nor that it would hold any bearing on the case. The Justices only issue was whether they had the right to possess a short-barreled shotgun or if it was in violation of a federal registration requirement. In the end, the Court remanded the case with an opportunity for the defendants to prove that short barreled shotguns could contribute to the common defense. . It should also be noted that the defendant was found shot dead before his defense was presented, and a ruling was made before both sides of the case were heard (yes, bizarre). It must also be said that Miller v. United States is a very curious case because both sides and viewpoints in the debate over guns and rights claim this case as a victory. The backers for gun rights believe this is an achievement on their behalf because it is a win if the interpretation is that ownership of weapons provides for a preservation of a well –regulated militia. Having their own Institute for Legislative Action, the NRA-ILA made a formal statement countering the views of pro-gun control interest groups on the Second Amendment. Challenging every aspect , one excerpt reads, “The incremental approach can similarly undermine a freedom by claiming the reasons for it no longer exist. An answer to the question, if all they want is a few rifles and handguns, or a few restrictions, why not give it to them? - is that that`s not what they want. Since none of the infringements is aimed at the problem of criminal violence, each and every one is doomed to failure. The anti-gunners are sure to follow up each failure, not with an admission their policies were misguided and should be repealed, but, instead, with a call for still more restrictions on the grounds the earlier restrictions weren`t enough. Thus, every infringement, far from reducing the pressure for more restrictions, simply increases the pressure for the next curtailment of the freedoms for which our forefathers fought and died.” (2011) There are other reasons the pro-gunners reference for fighting for the freedom of the right to bear arms. At a rally in Montgomery, Alabama the reason to revolt against gun control and protect their rights is to assure the freedom from government tyranny, which is the inherent theme of the second amendment according to participators. James Madison often called the “Father of the Bill of Rights” also wrote the Federalist Paper NO. 46, and in it he penned, that if there must be a regular army, let it remain small, so that in the event of government tyranny, the militias of the states would be able to overwhelm it. He goes on to say that this is possible because of the uniquely armed nature of the citizenry in the United States, which even then many other nations did not have. He stated that the national army should not be more than one hundredth the size compared to the whole of the nation, or one quarter of all those able to bear arms, so in such a state the militia would have no trouble overwhelming it. In a final attempt to protect the Second Amendment rights as the NRA side sees it, gun shop owners and manufacturers are threatening to ban selling any firearms to law enforcement that they are unable to sell to the common citizen and a bill up for legislation in Texas will have law enforcement officers being charged with a crime for enforcing the new laws. There is, however, another perspective to be considered. Before the Executive Orders were even proposed there has been legislature of government and federal regulations going back to the National Firearms Act of 1934. Gun ban and reforms have been sought out by at least the last five Presidential administrations, including President Bushs, former Governors of Texas and longtime Republicans. The Gun Control advocate of Obamas reform site want to see them passed as a means of curbing the gun violence and mass shootings that have plagued the United States in the last decades. The pro-gun control population of the United States see things very differently when it comes to the presidential agenda outlined for gun control reform. First, they do not see how any of the stipulations recommended in President Obamas, “Now is the Time” plan even approaches the civil liberties issues the NRA accuses them of undermining. The twenty –three reforms are as follows:
1."Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system."2.
"Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system."3. "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system."4. "Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks."5. "Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun."6. "Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers."7. "Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign."8. "Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission)."9. "Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations."10. "Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement."11. "Nominate an ATF director."12. "Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations."13. "Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."15. "Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies."16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."17. "Release a letter to health care
providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities."18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."19. "Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education."20. "Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover."21. "Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges."22. "Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations."23. "Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on Mental Health. (2013).
The gun control advocates do not read these as having any bearing on the guns already in American citizen s possession, nor do those who wish to purchase them in the future, unless you cannot pass the background check requirement. In the event that you cannot pass the background check, then it was illegal for the person to own a gun before the transaction was initiated. The biggest change on the agenda for supporters of gun control is to change the gun show loophole law .The gun show loophole makes it very easy for guns to fall into the hands of prohibited individuals, including criminals and juveniles. This bill would force all vendors at the trade gun and ammunition show to perform background checks on every potential buyer. The so-called loophole in the laws stemming from the Gun Control Act of 1968, currently does not require non-licensed dealers who are selling personal weaponry stock, internet sales of weapons, or not for profit sales(such as trading) to legally perform background checks. Furthermore, these private sellers are not required to keep a record of the sale, whereas Federal Firearms Licensed dealers must report detailed accounts of all gun interactions. Closing the loophole would put a barrier between the legal and illegal markets for guns. It is more difficult for law enforcement to trace firearms sold on the secondary market or from non-licensed dealers. Registration with the National Instant Check System would ensure the purchasers are not underage or felons, and currently the President has included endeavors for the mentally ill to be accountable in a registry as well. The view they pose is that no matter what your interpretation of the Second Amendment may be, the fact remains there are already laws in place making it illegal for criminals and juveniles to possess guns. Federal law is already in existence requiring licensed dealers to perform background checks, but it only accounts for sixty percent of all guns sold, so the closure of the loophole is tantamount to increasing these percentages. The Coalition TO Stop Gun Violence would also like to see a law passed prohibiting gun owners to have weapons capable of more than ten rounds a magazine, arguing there is not a need of more firepower for the use of personal protection or sport .They do not believe this is an infringement on the Second amendment because it doesn’t curtail the right to bear arms. In Miller V United States ,the pro-gun control peoples stated the verdict was a triumph in their favor citing the ruling of the Court that there was no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment writing, “"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." As far as the President is concerned on the line drawn at the Second Amendment he summarizes his view with the statement , “As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.” (2008) The biggest pieces of evidence missing are what the Supreme Court has had to say on these matters. Are there absolutes? They ruled on the Freedom of Speech in the First Amendment not being an absolute if there was imminent danger inferred. There have been quite a few landmark cases that have set precedents including the strange case of Miller and the United States, but the latest findings that are referenced are usually from Heller VS. District of Columbia. This was a case that was heard in 2007 after seventy years of absence for litigation involving the meaning of the Second Amendment in relation to gun control. The hearings concerned the laws passed in the District of Columbia that required pistol owners to have licenses, all firearms to be unloaded and disassembled or trigger-locked and barring handgun registration. A group of private gun owners issued a lawsuit that claimed it was a violation of their right to bear arms, but the federal court in Washington, D.C. held that the Second Amendment applies to militia and not to private gun ownership. The appellate courts for the District of Columbia overturned the ruling and remanding that the amendment does protect private gun owners such as the plaintiff. Although disagreeing on the merits, respondents have urged the Court to review the case in order to clearly define the relationship between federal gun control laws and the Second Amendment. Judge Anthony Scalia wrote the majority opinion which in part reads, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”
The Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self- defense within the home. The Court based its holding on the text of the Second Amendment, as well as applicable language in state constitutions adopted soon after the Second Amendment. Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer filed dissenting opinions. Justice Stevens argued that the Second Amendment only protects the rights of individuals to bear arms as part of a well-regulated state militia, not for other purposes even if they are lawful. Justice Breyer agreed with Stevens' argument but also stated that even if possession were to be allowed for other reasons, any law regulating the use of firearms would have to be "unreasonable or inappropriate" to violate the Second Amendment. In Breyer's view, the D.C. laws at issue in this case were both reasonable and appropriate. While the rulings did address many specifics, it also leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made. Both sides bring some validity to the table that could confuse the average person that does not stick close to the statistics and intricacies of Guns and Gun Control. I feel it is the duty and obligation of the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of the issues Obama and the NRA face, however there has to be a dispute and an appeal process before the process can begin… stay tuned.
UNITED STATES v. MILLER. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 19 February 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1938/1938_696> http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/278145-gallup-majority-supports-obamas-gun-proposals#ixzz2LvuE9GhB Obama, Barack. 2008 Democratic primary debate in Philadelphia, April 16, 2008 at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary www.foxnews.com/.../2013/02/21/texas-lawmakers...gun-control Texas bill would block police from enforcing new federal gun laws. Associated Press
O'Connor, Karren, Larry J. Sabato, and Alixandria B. Yanus. American Government Roots and Reform. 2011th ed. Glenview: Pearson Education, 2011. Print.
"VA Senate Panel kills gun show loophole bill." The RichmondTimesDispatch 23 Jan. 2013. Web. 23 Jan. 2013. <www.timesdispatch.com >.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 14 February 2013. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290
Dowlut, Robert. Attorney for Amicus Curiae NRA. NRA-Institute for Legal Action, 15 Feb. 2000. Web. 25 Feb. 2013. <http://nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=114>
National Rifle Assoociation. Ed. Wayne LaPierre. NRA, n.d. Web. 21 Feb. 2013. <http://home.nra.org/#/nraorg/elm/78>.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/278145-gallup-majority-supports-obamas-gun-proposals#ixzz2LvuE9GhB
2008 Democratic primary debate in Philadelphia, April 16, 2008 at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary www.foxnews.com/.../2013/02/21/texas-lawmakers...gun-control Texas bill would block police from enforcing new federal gun laws
Can Gun Control and the Civil Liberties issues be reconciled before the Second Amendment is Amended or ruled on by the Supreme Courts?
Our Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights had created a virtual war over guns and gun ownership in the United States for more than two centuries. It reads The Second Amendment provides: "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." It is the only amendment written with a purported purpose. The only one with a preamble or perhaps an observation that; a well-regulated militia is a necessity for the security of a free state, and an objective or a legality that: the right …show more content…
to bear arms will not be infringed upon. “But the fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing.”(Barack Obama, 2013) President Obama has issued twenty-three Executive Orders on Gun Control after the tragedy in Sandy Hook, where an AR15 was the weapon that took 36 lives before the shooter successfully turned the barrel on himself. The nation seems to be completely divided on this matter with a recent Gallop Poll on gun control reforms that resulted in a fairly narrow margin. When asked if they would want their Congressman to vote in favor of the Executive proposals 53% responded yes, with 41 % voting against the reform (7% refused/don’t know).? Until there is clear construction on the interpretation of the Second Amendment, how can we move further in regulations without long, legal repercussions ensuing? The NRA, as a powerful opponent, and our elected Chief of Office are among the two most influential bodies in the nation, so how are their elucidations at the extreme opposite of each other on the same court proceedings? Even though the Second Amendment was ruled on in Heller V District of Columbia, and did set some precedents that could be used a stare decisis, clarification of the Supreme Court on the federal boundaries and individual rights for gun ownership is desperately needed. The National Rifle Associations’ views stem from Second Amendment verbiage that the right to bear arms is a God given, natural liberty protected by our Bill Of Rights. Wayne LaPierre , Chief Executive Officer of the organization recently stated in a speech to Western Hunting and Conservation Expo for gun and hunting enthusiasts in Salt Lake City, “What they are serious about is banning, taxing and taking what they want. And leaving you, the average citizen all over our great country, as the first and least capable person in society of being able to defend yourself.”(February, 2013). He also explains that a movement to limit high capacity magazines and semi-automatic guns is equal to limiting a person’s ability to defend themselves. Mr. La Pierre contends the proposal of a universal background check for all purchasers of guns and ammunitions by dealers to the National Instant Check System is a fallacy that will allow a registry of gun owners. The registry will then be used to as a means for confiscating firearms held by law-abiding citizens. In Amicus Curiae briefs submitted by the NRA in U.S. V Emerson(1999) attorney Robert Dowlut fought for the respect and acknowledgment in the courts for rights of the Second Amendment to individuals, and not just a militia. The brief includes the rulings on the case of Miller v District of Columbia and his presentation states what the courts do NOT say in their ruling. For instance, he recognizes the Courts decision does not say that military weapons alone are protected by the Second Amendment, but that weapons under protection must have the ability to contribute to “the common defense”, relating that it [the Court] also does not say only foreign invaders comprehend to “the common defense” and therefore allows privately owned firearms to be useful against domestic rebellion, and self-defense from criminal attacks. He then exclaims the Courts did not accept the repeated suggestion of the government in the case that the militia means a military organization, such as the Marines. Dowalt also surmises that the Miller Case embraced the protection of the individual’s right to keep and bear arms, citing it was inferred by the Court never asking of the defendant’s status as members of the military, nor that it would hold any bearing on the case. The Justices only issue was whether they had the right to possess a short-barreled shotgun or if it was in violation of a federal registration requirement. In the end, the Court remanded the case with an opportunity for the defendants to prove that short barreled shotguns could contribute to the common defense. . It should also be noted that the defendant was found shot dead before his defense was presented, and a ruling was made before both sides of the case were heard (yes, bizarre). It must also be said that Miller v. United States is a very curious case because both sides and viewpoints in the debate over guns and rights claim this case as a victory. The backers for gun rights believe this is an achievement on their behalf because it is a win if the interpretation is that ownership of weapons provides for a preservation of a well –regulated militia. Having their own Institute for Legislative Action, the NRA-ILA made a formal statement countering the views of pro-gun control interest groups on the Second Amendment. Challenging every aspect , one excerpt reads, “The incremental approach can similarly undermine a freedom by claiming the reasons for it no longer exist. An answer to the question, if all they want is a few rifles and handguns, or a few restrictions, why not give it to them? - is that that`s not what they want. Since none of the infringements is aimed at the problem of criminal violence, each and every one is doomed to failure. The anti-gunners are sure to follow up each failure, not with an admission their policies were misguided and should be repealed, but, instead, with a call for still more restrictions on the grounds the earlier restrictions weren`t enough. Thus, every infringement, far from reducing the pressure for more restrictions, simply increases the pressure for the next curtailment of the freedoms for which our forefathers fought and died.” (2011) There are other reasons the pro-gunners reference for fighting for the freedom of the right to bear arms. At a rally in Montgomery, Alabama the reason to revolt against gun control and protect their rights is to assure the freedom from government tyranny, which is the inherent theme of the second amendment according to participators. James Madison often called the “Father of the Bill of Rights” also wrote the Federalist Paper NO. 46, and in it he penned, that if there must be a regular army, let it remain small, so that in the event of government tyranny, the militias of the states would be able to overwhelm it. He goes on to say that this is possible because of the uniquely armed nature of the citizenry in the United States, which even then many other nations did not have. He stated that the national army should not be more than one hundredth the size compared to the whole of the nation, or one quarter of all those able to bear arms, so in such a state the militia would have no trouble overwhelming it. In a final attempt to protect the Second Amendment rights as the NRA side sees it, gun shop owners and manufacturers are threatening to ban selling any firearms to law enforcement that they are unable to sell to the common citizen and a bill up for legislation in Texas will have law enforcement officers being charged with a crime for enforcing the new laws. There is, however, another perspective to be considered. Before the Executive Orders were even proposed there has been legislature of government and federal regulations going back to the National Firearms Act of 1934. Gun ban and reforms have been sought out by at least the last five Presidential administrations, including President Bushs, former Governors of Texas and longtime Republicans. The Gun Control advocate of Obamas reform site want to see them passed as a means of curbing the gun violence and mass shootings that have plagued the United States in the last decades. The pro-gun control population of the United States see things very differently when it comes to the presidential agenda outlined for gun control reform. First, they do not see how any of the stipulations recommended in President Obamas, “Now is the Time” plan even approaches the civil liberties issues the NRA accuses them of undermining. The twenty –three reforms are as follows:
1."Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system."2.
"Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system."3. "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system."4. "Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks."5. "Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun."6. "Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers."7. "Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign."8. "Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission)."9. "Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations."10. "Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement."11. "Nominate an ATF director."12. "Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations."13. "Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."15. "Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies."16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."17. "Release a letter to health care
providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities."18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."19. "Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education."20. "Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover."21. "Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges."22. "Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations."23. "Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on Mental Health. (2013).
The gun control advocates do not read these as having any bearing on the guns already in American citizen s possession, nor do those who wish to purchase them in the future, unless you cannot pass the background check requirement. In the event that you cannot pass the background check, then it was illegal for the person to own a gun before the transaction was initiated. The biggest change on the agenda for supporters of gun control is to change the gun show loophole law .The gun show loophole makes it very easy for guns to fall into the hands of prohibited individuals, including criminals and juveniles. This bill would force all vendors at the trade gun and ammunition show to perform background checks on every potential buyer. The so-called loophole in the laws stemming from the Gun Control Act of 1968, currently does not require non-licensed dealers who are selling personal weaponry stock, internet sales of weapons, or not for profit sales(such as trading) to legally perform background checks. Furthermore, these private sellers are not required to keep a record of the sale, whereas Federal Firearms Licensed dealers must report detailed accounts of all gun interactions. Closing the loophole would put a barrier between the legal and illegal markets for guns. It is more difficult for law enforcement to trace firearms sold on the secondary market or from non-licensed dealers. Registration with the National Instant Check System would ensure the purchasers are not underage or felons, and currently the President has included endeavors for the mentally ill to be accountable in a registry as well. The view they pose is that no matter what your interpretation of the Second Amendment may be, the fact remains there are already laws in place making it illegal for criminals and juveniles to possess guns. Federal law is already in existence requiring licensed dealers to perform background checks, but it only accounts for sixty percent of all guns sold, so the closure of the loophole is tantamount to increasing these percentages. The Coalition TO Stop Gun Violence would also like to see a law passed prohibiting gun owners to have weapons capable of more than ten rounds a magazine, arguing there is not a need of more firepower for the use of personal protection or sport .They do not believe this is an infringement on the Second amendment because it doesn’t curtail the right to bear arms. In Miller V United States ,the pro-gun control peoples stated the verdict was a triumph in their favor citing the ruling of the Court that there was no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment writing, “"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." As far as the President is concerned on the line drawn at the Second Amendment he summarizes his view with the statement , “As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.” (2008) The biggest pieces of evidence missing are what the Supreme Court has had to say on these matters. Are there absolutes? They ruled on the Freedom of Speech in the First Amendment not being an absolute if there was imminent danger inferred. There have been quite a few landmark cases that have set precedents including the strange case of Miller and the United States, but the latest findings that are referenced are usually from Heller VS. District of Columbia. This was a case that was heard in 2007 after seventy years of absence for litigation involving the meaning of the Second Amendment in relation to gun control. The hearings concerned the laws passed in the District of Columbia that required pistol owners to have licenses, all firearms to be unloaded and disassembled or trigger-locked and barring handgun registration. A group of private gun owners issued a lawsuit that claimed it was a violation of their right to bear arms, but the federal court in Washington, D.C. held that the Second Amendment applies to militia and not to private gun ownership. The appellate courts for the District of Columbia overturned the ruling and remanding that the amendment does protect private gun owners such as the plaintiff. Although disagreeing on the merits, respondents have urged the Court to review the case in order to clearly define the relationship between federal gun control laws and the Second Amendment. Judge Anthony Scalia wrote the majority opinion which in part reads, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”
The Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self- defense within the home. The Court based its holding on the text of the Second Amendment, as well as applicable language in state constitutions adopted soon after the Second Amendment. Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer filed dissenting opinions. Justice Stevens argued that the Second Amendment only protects the rights of individuals to bear arms as part of a well-regulated state militia, not for other purposes even if they are lawful. Justice Breyer agreed with Stevens' argument but also stated that even if possession were to be allowed for other reasons, any law regulating the use of firearms would have to be "unreasonable or inappropriate" to violate the Second Amendment. In Breyer's view, the D.C. laws at issue in this case were both reasonable and appropriate. While the rulings did address many specifics, it also leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made. Both sides bring some validity to the table that could confuse the average person that does not stick close to the statistics and intricacies of Guns and Gun Control. I feel it is the duty and obligation of the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of the issues Obama and the NRA face, however there has to be a dispute and an appeal process before the process can begin… stay tuned.
UNITED STATES v. MILLER. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 19 February 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1938/1938_696> http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/278145-gallup-majority-supports-obamas-gun-proposals#ixzz2LvuE9GhB Obama, Barack. 2008 Democratic primary debate in Philadelphia, April 16, 2008 at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary www.foxnews.com/.../2013/02/21/texas-lawmakers...gun-control Texas bill would block police from enforcing new federal gun laws. Associated Press
O'Connor, Karren, Larry J. Sabato, and Alixandria B. Yanus. American Government Roots and Reform. 2011th ed. Glenview: Pearson Education, 2011. Print.
"VA Senate Panel kills gun show loophole bill." The RichmondTimesDispatch 23 Jan. 2013. Web. 23 Jan. 2013. <www.timesdispatch.com >.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 14 February 2013. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290
Dowlut, Robert. Attorney for Amicus Curiae NRA. NRA-Institute for Legal Action, 15 Feb. 2000. Web. 25 Feb. 2013. <http://nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=114>
National Rifle Assoociation. Ed. Wayne LaPierre. NRA, n.d. Web. 21 Feb. 2013. <http://home.nra.org/#/nraorg/elm/78>.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/278145-gallup-majority-supports-obamas-gun-proposals#ixzz2LvuE9GhB
2008 Democratic primary debate in Philadelphia, April 16, 2008 at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary www.foxnews.com/.../2013/02/21/texas-lawmakers...gun-control Texas bill would block police from enforcing new federal gun laws