Recent orders
FIREARMS REGULATION IN THE UNITED STATES (2)
FIREARMS REGULATION IN THE UNITED STATES
Subject
Students Name
Institution of Affiliation
Date
The Second Amendment in the United States constitution refers to the amendment and the section of the bill of rights that stipulates that “individuals have the right to keep and bear firearms”. The changes was adopted in the United States constitution on December 15th of the year 1791. The second amendment stipulates 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.” The clause has spackled debate as to the primary intention of the changes as it allows for the people to own guns for their safety with the stipulation of a regulation.
With the presence of an unclear clause, some of the individuals believe that the phrase of the constitutional change “The right of the people to keep and bear firearms” develops a personal constitutional right for the residents of the American nation to own arms for protection. Under the individual right theory, the constitution of the US have restrictions on the legislative organs from the prohibition of the possession of firearms. As well, the amendment renders the restrictive and the prohibitory regulations to be unconstitutional. Some of the scholars argue that the prefatory language used by the drafters of the constitution “a well-regulated militia” was intended to restrict the Congress from legislating away the right to self-defense of a state and therefore the scholars have come to term the theory as a collective right theory. The collective right theory stipulates that the citizens don’t have an individual right to possess firearms and that the local, state as well as the federal bodies entrusted with legislations possess the mandate to regulate the guns without having an implication to a constitutional right.
Various decisions have been made by the Supreme Court regarding the issues of gun control, further triggering more debate as to whether the government should allow the gun regulation to continue. One of such lawsuits that was presented before the Supreme Court includes the case of the District of Columbia vs. Heller that was presented in the year 2008. The case of the District of Columbia vs. Heller is considered to be a turning point case through which the United States’ Supreme Court came up with the ruling that the amendment protected the persons’ right to possess a gun, with no connections to a militia and for the purposes of self-defense of an individual within their home. Furthermore, the Supreme Court deliberated that the Washington DC’s ban on handguns and requirements to which the legally owned firearms, both rifles, and shotguns should be unloaded as well as disassembled.
In the same lawsuit of the District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Supreme Court as well stated that the right to possess guns was limited and that the firearms and their owners would continue to be controlled so that they could not get misused. The decision by the Supreme Court, however, didn’t answer the question as to whether the protections of the Second Amendment were included in the Fourth amendment’s Due Process Clause against the states due to the Washington DC’s unique status as a federal district. The case, however, was addressed in the year 2010 by McDonald vs. The city of Chicago whereby it was found that the protections were incorporated in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The McDonald vs. The city of Chicago was the ruling by the Supreme Court to make a decision concerning the protection of the Second Amendment of a person’s right to possess as well as to keep arms for self-defense.
The Supreme Court on June 26th of the year 2008 made a decision by a vote of five to four and therefore upheld the court of appeals decision for the Washington DC’s circuit in the case of the District of Columbia vs. Heller. The jury struck down the guidelines of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 and termed them as being illegal. The court further determined that the handguns as well are arms and are enlisted for the same purposes as the rest of the firearms as stipulated by the second amendment. Besides, the Supreme Court found that the Firearm Regulations Act of 1975 was not warranted and therefore the ban was illegal and consequently struck down all the portions of the regulations Act to which required that all the firearms that include riffles as well as shotguns to be kept unloaded as well as disassembled and further the stipulation that a trigger lock should bind the guns.
The restrictions were against the line of the second amendment in that the primary purpose of the possession of firearms is for self-protection and therefore disassembling or locking the trigger might not mean that the gun is for protection but can only be termed as a show-off. A person could be attacked and not be able to defend themselves as their guns are disassembled, unloaded and even locked and this takes time to reload the gun implying that the primary purpose for protection wasn’t achieved leading to the scrapping off of the regulations Act in Washington DC. Before the decisions of plucking down the Regulations Act in Washington DC, the Supreme Court as well restricted the residents from being in possession of handguns with the exemptions for those that were registered before the year 1975.
Alan Gura was the representative of Dick Heller who by then was a security guard and had challenged the statute’s decision after he was denied a gun license that he had intended to keep at home. Alan Gura said that the shipment of machine guns, as well as the sawed-off shotguns, would be acceptable. He further argued that the guns could be banned from the schools and not for keeping at home for self-defense. The legislature has the ability to regulate the deals of controlling firearms in public places, and according to Alan, there was no argument about that its regulation. According to Gura, the District’s action on the ban of the functional firearms especially in the homes was extreme and that it was doomed to fail by any measure of the constitutional scrutiny. According to Alan Gura, the ban was a violation of the fundamental rights of self-defense, and therefore the right was at stake when such a ban was passed.
According to Gura, the denial of a gun license that was aimed to provide security at home was too much as this was a way of violating the rights of an individual as stipulated by the constitution. Guns and other rifles could only be banned or restricted on public institutions such as schools where there are lots of innocent school kids and not at homes. Being in possession of a firearm in such places such as the schools could call for regulation in the arms as the intention of the gun holder is unknown and therefore only on such places that the District of Columbia would deem it appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms to protect the safety of the children.
The gun control debate has a long history spackling different opinions regarding when it started. Some of the people claim that the debate began after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 which increased the public awareness to the relative inability control over the procurement and ownership of guns in the United States. Before 1968, firearms that included rifles, handguns, and shotguns were sold over the counter as well as through the mail catalogs and magazines. The firearms were sold to almost everyone especially for the adults, and the sale was made at any place in the nation. It is however not true that the gun debate began in the year 1968 after the assassination of President Kennedy as the history tracks back to 1791 where the states and the federal laws that regulated the personal ownership of the firearms began.
In the year 1791, the second amendment, “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” gained the final validation. The second amendment was the beginning of the debate in that there was a confusion of what exactly the phrase meant as well as the intention of the framers of the constitution at the time. The bill allowed for the people to keep and possess firearms for personal defense and therefore made it a right for every person to be eligible in owning a rifle or a shotgun for the purposes of personal protection. The clause sparkled more debates as some of the people were against the possession of the firearms while others were of the opinion that with regulation in the purchase as well as the militia it would be possible to minimize chaos in the country and stop unwanted deaths.
The state of Georgia in 1837 enacted a law that aimed at restricting the handguns. The Act was further ruled as being unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. With the rule of the bill being illegal, the state of Georgia was compelled to abandon it and stick the second amendment. In 1865, several southern states adopted the “black codes” to which among banning other things, they forbid the people of color from being in possession of the firearms and immunizations of any sort. In 1871, the National Rifle Association (NRA) aimed at improving the American resident’s marksmanship in readiness of war. Further, in 1927, the United States Congress passed a law that aimed at banning the mailing of the concealable firearms.
In the year 1934, the National Firearms Act was enacted by the Congress and aimed at regulating the manufacture, sale as well as the possession of the fully automatic weapons with the examples of the sub-machine guns. The federal firearms act enacted in 1938 was targeted in placing the first limitations on the sale of ordinary firearms. The individuals responsible for the sale of the firearms were required to source a federal firearm license that costed an annual amount of 1 dollar. The sellers of the guns were also required to maintain a list that contained the name and address of the buyers. With the federal firearms act of 1938, the sales of guns to the individuals convicted of violent felonies were prohibited.
In 1968 the Gun Control Act was enacted with the primary aim of restricting the guns out of the hands of the illegal owners due to age, criminality as well as incompetence. The Gun Control Act controlled the importation of firearms, expanded the firearms seller licensing and as well-regulated the recordkeeping requirements. Besides, the Act regulated and restricted by imposing limitations on specific places on the sale and purchase of the handguns. The list of the individuals that were banned from the purchase of the firearms got expanded to include the individuals convicted with non-business related felonies, the users of the illegal drugs as well as the individuals found to be mentally incompetent or of sound mind. The gun control act, therefore, was aimed at ensuring that the sale of guns was only availed to the responsible citizens with the sole purpose of personal defense at home.
The armed career criminal act was enacted in 1986 aimed at increasing the penalties for the possession of firearms by the people who were not eligible for the possession of the guns. The Crime Control Act of 1990 banned the production as well as the importation of the semiautomatic assault firearms in the United States. It is during the same year that the firearm free school zones were established, and this attracted particular penalties for the violations. In 1994, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act set a five day period of waiting for the buying of handguns and required that the local enforcement agencies oversee checks on the procurement of the handguns. In the same year, the Violent Crime Control and Enforcement Act of 1994 prohibited any dealings of the firearms of specific types for a period of ten years, but the law expired on September 2004 as the Congress failed to reauthorize.
In 1997, the United States Supreme Court in the lawsuit of Printz vs. the United States declared the background checks as a requirement for the Brandy Handgun Violence Prevention Act as being unconstitutional. In 1998, the undetectable firearms Act was signed by President Ronald Reagan, and this made it illegal for the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment as well as the general possession of the firearms that are not detectable by the walkthrough metal detectors. In October 2005, the protection of the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act got signed by President Bush and aimed at restricting the ability of the victims of crimes through which the firearms were used to sue the producers as well as the dealers of the firearms. The law also came with an amendment that required that all the new guns come with trigger locks. In the same year, the District of Columbia v. Heller case became the landmark decision with the Supreme Court affirming the second amendment in the rights to possess firearms overturning a 32-year ban on the sale of handguns in the District of Columbia.
The gun regulation in the state of Texas has been relaxed, and the country has not been too strict in the enactment of legislation aimed at regulating the flow of firearms by both selling and possession. Previously before the massive shooting of the innocent school kids in Santa Fe High School killing at least ten people. The affirmation of the 2008 ruling on the second amendment that allowed for the people to own guns for personal protection, had a significant influence and effect on the gun regulations in other states and the state of Texas is not an exception. The lawmakers in the state of Texas passed a bill that was aimed at reducing the cost of application for the licenses of the handguns from 140 dollars to 40 dollars.
Texas’ law also allowed the handguns license applicants to take the handgun safety classes online rather than taking the lessons in a classroom and this is to enable the use the acquired guns effectively. Apart from taking the online lessons, there is an addition of at least one hour of shooting range instructions by an expert before the person is allowed to take a shooting test. The laws on the cost of license application came as a result of the legislature passing the open carry and campus carry laws enacted in 2015 providing the state with the most relaxed laws on gun regulations in the United States.
Despite the relaxation of the background check in the licensing of the handguns, the Texans still need to pass a federal background check when making a purchase on the handguns. The campus carry laws allows the students in possession of licenses to carry with them concealed guns on campus. The open carry laws in Texas allows for the residents with licensed firearms to carry their guns in most of the public spaces and this can be attributed as being the reason as to why there are more shootings in the public places such as schools as there are no restrictions in the carrying of guns in public areas. The affirmation of the second amendment, therefore, can be said to have strengthened the laws of Texas that are concerned with gun control leading to more relaxed regulations.
The case concerning the District of Columbia vs. Heller in the year 2008 became a landmark case in the United States since the supreme court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects a individual’s right for being in possession of a firearm; that is only if they are not connected with a service of militia and as well for the purposes of personal defense at home. In the year 2010, another landmark case was affirmed, and this is the case that involved McDonald v. Chicago. During this case, the Supreme Court of the United States found that the right of a person to “Keep and bear arms” as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the US constitution are protected and incorporated in the Due Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.
The first case of Heller v. the District of Columbia was aimed to affirm the right to possess guns as stipulated by the Second Amendment while the latter case, McDonald v. Chicago came to strengthen the first case as it confirmed that the rights to bear and keep arms are incorporated in the Due Clause. With the two cases, the State of Texas has as well relaxed their laws in relation to firearms and indeed have allowed the carrying of guns in most of the public places. Besides, the Texas legislature has enacted laws that facilitate the training of newly acquired weapon owners before the use of their guns by providing free online training. More laws need to be put in place to restrict the carrying of guns in public places as this will reduce the number of attacks that have previously been witnessed mainly in the schools. Guns should only be used for personal protection at homes as stipulated by the second amendment and therefore the Texas government should enact laws that restrict people especially students from carrying firearms in schools. Bibliography
Doherty, Brian. Gun control on trial: Inside the Supreme Court battle over the Second Amendment. Cato Institute, 2008.
Fischman, Harris. “Gun Control and the Second Amendment: Developments and Controversies in the Wake of District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.” Fordham Urban Law Journal 39, no. 5 (2016): 1339.
Hill, John. “North to the Future of the Right to Bear Arms: Analyzing the Alaska Firearms Freedom Act and Applying Firearm Localism to Alaska.” Alaska L. Rev. 33 (2016): 125.
Magoon, Kekla. Gun Control. ABDO Publishing Company, 2010.
Ruben, Eric, and Joseph Blocher. “From theory to doctrine: An empirical analysis of the right to keep and bear arms after Heller.” Duke LJ 67 (2017): 1433.
Short, Aric. “Sane Gun Policy From Texas? A Blueprint for Balanced State Campus Carry Laws.” (2018).
Spitzer, Robert J. “Gun law history in the United States and Second Amendment rights.” Law & Contemp. Probs. 80 (2017): 55.
Waldman, Michael. The second amendment: A biography. Simon and Schuster, 2015.
Walsh, Jim, Frank Kemerer, and Laurie Maniotis. The educator’s guide to Texas school law. University of Texas Press, 2014.
Winkler, Adam. Gun Fight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2013.
In this paper I will argue against the case against pets when the proponents of the article suggest that a morally just socie
Name:
Professor:
Course:
Date:
In this paper I will argue against the case against pets when the proponents of the article suggest that a morally just society would only translate to a world with no pets, no zoos, no sheep fields, no cow barns and no aquaria as the true definition of animal rights. This argument is misleading as achieving animal rights does not rely entirely on allowing animals to live on their own without any human interference. Human beings can only promote justice for animals by ensuring that they make various interventions that seek to protect the rights of animals in their capacity as non-humans rather than comparing animal justice to human perception of justice.
The first argument made by the writer of the article is that domestication of animals is a violation of essential animal rights is vague and misleading. It is difficult for one to define animal rights because as nature dictates, the relationship between human beings and animals is mutually and neither can exist without the other. If instance, if by ensuring that animals were to be left in the world on their own, even if they would not be regulated by human beings, they are likely to face hostility from other predators that are stronger than them. This means that naturally even if human beings were not to domesticate animals for food or for their own use, they would still have to face hostilities from nature. Predation from other animals in the world would mean that the animals that are already domesticated would be facing extinction in the forest as their reproduction and survival would be reliant on conditions in the world.
Promoting animals’ rights is morally unachievable as non-human animals cannot think and make moral decisions like humans. Animal rights are not meant to exist in a vacuum just as human rights. The human rights are often regulated and governed based on set principles and laws that must be adhered to. When human being violates certain set policies and laws, the validity of their rights can be suspended and then allowed to face the consequences of their actions. Promoting animal rights in the sense of human rights can be difficult as animals do not have the common sense that allows them to act within the set principles and laws. It could also be difficult in ensuring that non-human animals can bear the consequences of their actions that are likely to cause damage and harm to other animals or humans.
The argument that non-human animals should not be treated as property is misleading as fundamentally, humans are the only animals that have ability to exploit other animals for their continued benefit. Non-humans can only benefit from other animals if they can use them as food and this is true for carnivores. Human beings should have the right to exploit domesticated animals such as hens, cows, and horses for their benefit. Human beings are intelligent animals and they cannot be compared to other non-animals. Ensuring that non-human animals are not treated as chattel property simply equates to comparing animals to human beings and although animals have their own rights, such rights should not be similar to human rights. Animal rights should be promoted on the basis and based on a set animal welfare criteria without having to compare them with human rights.
The argument that there is need for animals not to be treated as property as a basis for promoting non-human rights and reducing standardized exploitation of such animals is misleading. Many countries globally have performed certain non-human animal rights that seek to ensure that there is no institutionalized exploitation of animals. Rights such as access to medical care, right to decent housing, right to belong to a family are already being implemented in various countries and domesticated animals’ rights have been protected. Such acts have promoted animal’s welfare, and instead of promoting radicalized changes to the approach to animal rights, animal rights advocates should seek to strengthen such gains.
The authors of the article argue that they are objected to about 99.99% of the humans use other non-human animals. They only consider using animals for medical research as the only gainful and rightful use of non-human animals. If such an argument is put into context, it could be explained to mean that human beings should cease exploiting non-human animals. Although research has shown that vegetarian diets are healthier compared to eating animal products, some animal products such as eggs and milk are still nutritious and can be obtained without having to torture or violate animal rights. The argument that all human use of animals is terminated would be a tall order that cannot be achieved and instead of focusing on unachievable objectives, it would be important for animal right activists to focus on how they can foster a mutual relationship between animals and human beings. This mutual relationship should seek to achieve minimal violation of animal rights while ensuring human needs from animals are met in an acceptable manner.
The argument against the domestication of the basis of the inability for animals to willingly be in an interdependent relationship with human beings is limiting in nature. For instance, although human relationships are mutual and require each party’s consent, adults have the responsibility to guide the relationships that minors have with others. This is because minors as like animals like the capacity to make sound decisions on what is right and in their best interest. The article does not acknowledge the inherent responsibility that humans have in promoting peaceful co-existence between nature and manipulating natural systems for mutual benefit. Domestication of animals in homes or the zoos or aquaria has been proven as a way though with humans have successfully prevented the extinction of non-human animals and animal rights advocates should promote such initiatives.
In this lecture, Professor Bright discuss some of the controversies
In this lecture, Professor Bright discuss some of the controversies, conflicts and compromises that led to the American civil war. In 1846, the United States declared war on Mexico. Though the war was a short one, lasting less than six months, it had a long-lasting effect on the country (YaleCourses 2008). The Mexican War left its mark on both sides of the border and shaped several major events in United States history such as the concept of Manifest Destiny and territories acquired during the Spanish-American War (YaleCourses 2008). The Mexican War also set the stage for the Compromise of 1850 (also known as the Gadsden Purchase) which reflected the political climate of the country at the time; a Democratic Party was in power and trying to maintain Southern dominance. The Compromise, in which California was purchased from Mexico for $30 million and New Mexico and Utah were admitted as states for $10 million respectively, angered many northerners who felt that the purchase was too cheap. However, both territories were seen as vital to protecting America’s western frontier from possible encroachment by foreign powers. The Compromise also reflected a shift in Southern politics during this time; expansionist ideas had changed into more conciliatory stances.
I also learnt that the Mexican War was at least partially instigated by American expansionists who had long advocated for a southern route to California (YaleCourses 2008). In the 1830s, American settlers migrated across the country in large numbers, many eventually arriving in Texas. By 1836, war broke out between Texas and Mexico and resulted in an independent Texas. The former Mexican territory still claimed a great deal of land that it considered its own. These new Texans feared that they would not be able to maintain their freedom, so they sent Sam Houston to Washington to petition for annexation.
The lecture also made me understand the impact of Frederick Douglass’s speech that was made on July 5th, 1852 at Rochester, New York in commemoration of American Independence Day. The speech was an address about the meaning black Americans attached that day. In his speech, Douglass made a comparison between their freedom and that of America – slavery and liberty (YaleCourses 2008). He spoke about how African-Americans were unable to enjoy full equality with white Americans amidst the entire nation because they were enslaved as laborers and that they were still suffering from its consequences even after abolition. Douglass’s speech was important because it identifies the problem of racism that has been suffered by African-Americans and calls for change. In addition, it provided a platform where African-Americans could gain their independence from white oppression, not only by slavery but by racism as well.
I agree that slavery did not directly influence the civil war; but it was only used as an excuse by the states to gain their personal interests. Slave-owners in southern states saw slavery as an essential part of their living economy when they found out about their growing population with no prospect for agricultural prosperity or industrial advancement. Without the economy of slave-owners, the south would have no revenue to support itself. As a result, the southern states wanted to expand slavery in order to grow their economy (YaleCourses 2008). Furthermore, the north did not want slavery to expand into their western territory because it was against their antislavery doctrines. Surprised by this sudden change of view from northerners on why they were going to war; southerners were shocked and angered that their fellow colonial brother would turn against them now that they needed each other most. The South offered the North an enormous amount of compensation. All they wanted was access to western territories. I liked the lecture because it helped me understand the Mexican war and the compromise of 1850, as well as the issue of slavery expansion into the western territories.
References
YaleCourses. (2008 November, 21). Expansion and Slavery: Legacies of the Mexican War and the Compromise of 1850. [Video file]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/8bzOIn2WVAw