Gun Control Laws

One of the longest running arguments in the United States has centered on the issue of gun control and the accompanying federal and state laws which govern gun control. Gun control laws were not put in place to eradicate the Second Amendment civil right to own and bear arms, only to govern the legal and lawful use of firearms and the advocacy for responsible gun ownership. Unfortunately, there will always be a portion of any given society that exists outside the laws and disregards the discretionary practice of responsible gun ownership. 

Also, one of the primary concerns when it comes to gun ownership is who is allowed access to firearms and how strictly the laws are enforced for responsible gun ownership. In recent years, there have been an overwhelming and terrifying phenomenon of kids who have gained access to firearms and used them to exact public executions in schools. Although the Second Amendment to the Constitution should be upheld, gun laws need to be heavily regulated and improved to make sure gun ownership remains a responsible and moderated privilege for American citizens. 

The history of gun control laws in the United States began during the prohibition era. Interestingly enough, it was the advent of gangster activity which propelled the government into action. Historical criminal figures such as Al Capone, Pretty Boy Floyd, and Bonnie and Clyde served as the catalyst for the installation of gun control in America. The first official gun control legislation began in 1934 when the National Firearms Act was put into place. It was, “the first federal gun-control law, which levies a restrictive $200 tax on the manufacturer or sale of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. All sales were to be recorded in a national registry” (“History of Gun…”). It was the first time in United States history that guns were registered and recorded in a national database.

In 1938, President Roosevelt received the nod to create the National Firearms Act. This piece of legislation made it necessary for any and all interstate gun dealers to be licensed and to have detailed records of any sales or transactions (“History of Gun…”). The United States government became aware of the criminal element intent of using the Second Amendment guarantees to carry firearms and use them unlawfully. This spurred the creation of the first set of federal guidelines which would not only moderate the ownership of firearms but would also track and tabulate their use. The use of guns in violent crimes was becoming prevalent and the federal government began a process to stem the flow of illegal gun use. 

One of the most recent landmark cases in the issue of gun control, and especially concerning personal rights to have guns in the home or to be licensed to carry them in public, was the District of Columbia v. Heller in March of 2008. This was the first time in nearly seventy years that a case of gun control laws as affected by the Second Amendment was heard in open court. The lawsuit was brought to court by private citizens led by Mark Heller, a former police officer, who claimed that they had a Constitutional right to own firearms. This was as a result of The District of Columbia (DOC) passing a law that forbids citizens from registering handguns or privately owning firearms unless they were unloaded or trigger locked.

The plaintiffs argued the DOC was violating the Second Amendment to the Constitution and citizens had the right to bear arms. The Federal Trial Court found the ruling in favor of the state. Their argument was that the Second Amendment guaranteed the right to bear arms only for the use of organized militia. Furthermore, the court also argued that Washington D.C. was a federal enclave of the United States and not an actual state. This meant the citizens were not guaranteed the same rights as the American population who lived in defined states. The ruling was eventually overturned by the State Appeals Court in favor of Heller by a vote of 5-4 (“District of Columbia…”). 

The case of The District of Columbia v. Heller was a landmark case because it became a template for the subsequent similar cases. The main issue created by this law became the interpretation of what the Constitution implied. Also, there is a division between what the state ratifies as legality and the particular views of the federal government. Also, there is the issue of personal bias and opinionated scrutiny on behalf of the presiding judges. There is entirely too much room for subjectivity and the laws need to be standardized, state to state, and then agreed upon by the federal courts. 

The ruling from this lawsuit set a new precedent for gun ownership. Because the original ruling was appealed and overturned, it placed tighter restrictions on general gun ownership and found that citizens in British Columbia had the right to own firearms, loaded and ready, in their homes as well as being licensed to carry. Although there are strict standards for recording and tracking gun ownership, this still created large holes in the system for criminals and minors to slip through and own, or at least possess, firearms. In addition, the decision of the court, in this case, could very well trigger a nationwide challenge to the gun control laws already in place and those laws being created to protect the American people.

The problem is that the Second Amendment does not clearly define who is entitled to own guns and the language used in outdated, originally written at a time of the founding fathers when there was a war going on and there was a need for an organized militia. Many proponents of gun control laws feel the original wording of the amendment was intended for just this purpose…gun ownership for organized groups based on the need to protect and guarantee freedoms from outside forces. 

The significance of this case cannot be underestimated. The entire structure of gun control laws, as well as the safety of the general population, can be affected by the resulting decision and the description of the rights contained within the Constitution:

It's significant because either it's going to fuel attempts to restrict gun ownership or it could put a constitutional wet blanket on any effort to control gun ownership," says Martin Redish, a constitutional law professor at Northwestern University. For most of American history, courts have interpreted the Second Amendment to apply to the collective right of states to assemble groups of armed citizens, such as the National Guard. Nine federal circuit courts have upheld that position, and the Supreme Court favored it when it last considered the issue in the 1939 case. (While that decision upheld the federal regulation of an individual's use of sawed-off shotguns, it didn't directly address the scope of the Second Amendment). (Schwartz par. 3-4)

The stage is now set for the loosening of restrictions on gun control laws. This creates a major safety dilemma for homes across the country and essentially provides additional security risks for the country in general. More firearms in homes mean more guns available to children and potentially unstable individuals such as the Orlando Pulse Club shooter. This includes everything from higher suicide rates, patricide, accidental shootings, misfiring events, and easier access for minors to procure and use weapons.

Although firearms-related deaths and injuries have not reached epidemic proportion, it is on its way. Recent studies are finding that hospitals and physicians are encountering gun-related injuries are more common than ever: “In a February 2013 survey of internists, 63% of respondents reported having had patients who were injured or killed by a gun” (Butkus et al. 12). This survey is enlightening as it shows just a portion of the medical community, 

internists to be exact, are witnessing such a high percentage of unrelated injuries and deaths. In the same study, “ACP performed a cross-sectional survey among a large, nationally representative panel of internists in the United States about their attitudes toward firearms and firearm injury prevention. Most respondents (85%) believed that firearm injury is a public health issue” (Butkus et al. 12). This is an alarmingly high number of entry-level medical professionals who feel that firearms are causing a huge healthcare concern in the United States.

It is a simple fact there are more and more incidents of accidental shootings in American homes. Also, guns in the home also provide potentially unstable individuals with access to harm themselves and others. There are no foolproof ways of preventing access to firearms in the home. Even with a secure location and seemingly sufficient security, if someone is intent on getting ahold of a gun nothing will stop them. One stop at a hardware store provides anyone of any age with access to bolt cutters to remove padlocks. A perusal of the internet will provide instructions on how to circumvent a combination lock. 

Also to consider is simple human error. People forget to shut and lock things. All it takes is one time for a gun safe to be left open and a child has direct access to a firearm. Also, without tight gun laws and severe restrictions, anyone can gain access to a gun illegally. Firearms are sold on the black market and in the urban subculture sets of America. Even if someone does not know a gun dealer personally, it would not be hard to find a connection. Additionally, the internet is an enormous universe of illicit activity. Gun sales and trading is no exception. Ultimately, for anyone of any age, if there is a will there is a way.

One of the hot button issues for stricter gun control laws is the issue of mental illness. Politicians are beginning to draw connections between many cases of random shootings and the evidence present of a pre-existing mental illness. There is evidence that “strongly suggests that mass shooters are often mentally ill and socially marginalized. Enhanced psychiatric attention may well prevent particular crimes. And, to be sure, mass shootings often shed light on the need for more investment in mental health support networks or improved state laws and procedures regarding gun access” (Metzl and MacLeish 240). Numerous public shooters, the majority, in fact, have demonstrated or been documented as having a mental health issue in their background. 

The pinnacle of the discussion centers on access to firearms. It is not a simple matter of violating civil rights, it is an issue of better background checks and more thorough regulation on who is purchasing firearms and why. The forefathers of the United States did not intend for high school students or mentally ill individuals to be in possession of firearms. To won, a firearm is essentially a privilege and must be treated as such. There must be stronger policies which govern who is allowed to purchase firearms. Also, there need to be stricter penalties for anyone who knowingly assists someone in purchasing a gun when they should not have one. 

The most common trend for American fringe youth culture is the current staging of mass murder in school settings. This is not a recent phenomenon, but it is most assuredly a growing one. In almost half the states in America, as well as Canada, Sweden, Germany, Australia, and a host of other countries, school shootings have been taking place, both at high schools and at college campuses. The rate at which these shootings have been occurring is staggering. What is more troubling is there has been no effective way of stopping these events despite the amount of security of precautions taken by a school system. 

Although there have been several incidents over the past seventy years involving children opening fire in schools, one particular event defined the way in which Americans perceive the risk of school shootings happening elsewhere: Columbine High School in Littleton Colorado. This event single-handedly drove home the absolute need for tighter gun control and a better system of protecting our state institutions and children in public settings. 

So much is now known about the Columbine shootings and it has become the archetypal horror scenario for any school, in any town, in every state. One of the most amazing details about the Columbine massacre is that despite the fact Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris had been planning the even for over a year, no one knew it was coming. They had well-advertised their plan, even going so far as to telegraph their violent intentions in the school yearbook, and had let a lot of people know what they were going to do. Probably the most disturbing detail from the Columbine massacre is how easily the killers were able to obtain their weapons.

Klebold and Harris simply went fishing for guns. They made their intentions of buying firearms well known and basically searched for the right person to make their purchase for them. In the end, the two young men simply used a female friend as a purchasing agent for their firearms. The girl herself was only 18 years old, which qualified her to buy as many weapons and as much ammunition as she wanted. She easily passed a preliminary background check, as she had no felonies or criminal history, and made an open purchase. After buying the guns, she simply handed them over to the two boys who included the weapons in their plans and added them to their growing stockpile of destruction.

In the events of March 20, 1999, there was practically no one there to stop Klebold or Harris from committing a massacre. There was one armed guard outside of the building and although he exchanged gunfire with them, he was advised not to enter the building. Klebold and Harris were free to carry out their plans and executed 12 students and one teacher. They went virtually unopposed and had enough ammunition to quadruple the number of people killed if they had the opportunity. 

Furthermore, both of these young men each had a criminal background and had been recorded for having a mental illness. They also had detailed their plans in videos, school assignments, told friends about their intentions and had actually been caught with weapons prior to the shooting. All of the signs were there, yet they were still able to acquire guns….and they acquired them legally. All of the subsequent school shooters used the same methodology for carrying out their plans as well. 

Dave Cullen was the main journalist who covered the Columbine massacre. In his reports, Cullen clearly outlines that these two should have been flagged as deviant and never should have had access to weapons. Cullen states that “They left signs everywhere. Drawing on hundreds of interviews, thousands of pages of police files, FBI psychologists, and the boys' tapes and diaries, he gives a complete account of the Columbine tragedy ... A close-up portrait of violence, a community rendered helplessly, and police blunders and cover-ups, it is a human portrait of two killers” (12). Simply put, there was nothing restricting their behavior and all of the warning signs were either ignored or downplayed. 

Columbine sparked a national debate over gun control laws. Advocates of gun control came out of the woodwork and were met vehemently by their opponents, notably in the form of the NRA. However, the debate began and has not stopped since. The issue has been heavily discussed and minor steps have been taken to control gun ownership policy in the country. One of the big issues involving Columbine was that Klebold had in his possession a semi-automatic weapon in the form of a Tech-9. The solution then became to create a tighter restriction on the selling of automatic weapons. 

Despite the need for tighter national gun regulations, it is essential to maintain the freedoms Americans have defined by the constitution and the Second Amendment. It is reasonable that someone can own a gun for lawful use in their homes. The case of The District of British Columbia v. Heller is a prime example of the protection of civil liberties. In this particular case, the presiding judge advocated that it is a Second Amendment right for citizens, found that “the individual right to bear arms is limited to the possession of weapons ‘in common use.’ Based on this analysis. Justice Scalia concluded that the D.C. gun laws violated Heller's Second Amendment right to possess and carry a handgun in the home for self-defense” (“District of Columbia…”). It is difficult to argue that a person does not have the right to defend their home using deadly force.

There is also no guarantee, especially based on historical track records, that an effective method will be put in place to safely regulate gun control. The Americans do have the right to bear arms responsibly, and it is essential the Constitution continues to serve as a useful regulatory tool for civil rights, including gun ownership. As the case of the District of Columbia v. Heller has proven, the Second Amendment has continually been upheld and perpetually assured the right for citizens to bear arms for lawful use. The truth is there is no easy answer and the federal and state gun control legislature requires a complete overhaul. There simply does not exist a decent policy to control gun sales and use. The Second Amendment protects a normal citizen’s right to bear arms, but it also provides coverage for the deviant, mentally ill and criminally-minded individuals who would use guns for nefarious purposes.

Once again, however, this protects the rights of both responsible and criminal citizens of the United States. Most people will behave responsibly and adhere to the laws and the governing legislature involving gun control. However, there are those who will not, and to allow children access to firearms is simply unacceptable. There need to be appropriate measures, in the form of United States law, which provides security for all people while still guaranteeing civil rights.

It is well-documented that there are huge lapses in the government’s ability to control guns or to create effective laws, however:

Despite the mass shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado; Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia; a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado; Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut; and the attempted assassination of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and accompanying mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona, no gun control legislation has passed either house of Congress since the sun setting of the assault weapons ban.4  On the other hand, state legislatures have been far more active, primarily in liberalizing concealed carry laws.5  However, in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, a few states have moved to place additional restrictions on magazine capacity of semiautomatic firearms. (Vizzard 881)

The lack of reaction is underwhelming. The discussion continues on Capitol Hill and yet the solutions remain elusive. Even in the case of Columbine, it begs the question as to what can be done to better monitor and control gun sales and their intended use. It is an uphill struggle which has no easy answer. However, it is certain that something must be done and policies need to be created to better control who has access to firearms.

The question must be asked: how do we, as a nation and a government body, maintain civil liberties and still ensure the safety of the general population? It is difficult to find an answer, but gun control laws must be created and reinforced to guarantee the safety of everyone. The United States government must find an equitable and realistic way of creating effective laws that control gun purchasing and provide for the assurance guns will not be used unlawfully.

Works Cited

Butkus, R, et al. “Reducing Firearm-Related Injuries and Deaths in the United States: Executive Summary of a Policy Position Paper From the American College of Physicians.” Annals Of Internal Medicine, vol. 160, no. 12, 2014, pp. 858-860. Cullen, D. Columbine. New York: Twelve, 2009. 

“District of Columbia v. Heller: The Individual Right to Beat Arms.” Cornell University, 2008, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/07-290

“History of gun-control legislation.” The Washington Post, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/history-of-gun-control-legislation/2012/12/22/80c8d624-4ad3-11e2-9a42-d1ce6d0ed278_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1b9104b57627

Metzl, J. M. and MacLeish, K. T. “Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms.” American Journal Of Public Health, vol. 105, no. 2, 2015, p. 240. 

Schwartz, Emma. "In Congress, The Uphill Battle For Gun Control." U.S. News & World Report, vol. 144, no. 8, 2008, pp. 41-43. 

Vizzard, William J. "The Current And Future State Of Gun Policy In The United States." Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology, vol. 104, no. 4, 2015, p. 879.