America makes up one of the most armed societies in the world with over 40% of its households having guns. This phenomenon presents itself because of the legal backing of the possession of guns premised on the Second Amendment. Nonetheless, concern over the proliferation of gun-related violence over the years has called into question the viability of holding guns to the security of the citizens. There has been intense lobbying to pass a bill to enable disarmament of guns and to uphold the law by pro-gun lobbyists in equal measure.
The debate between pro-guns lobbyists and those advocating for gun control has generated a lot of debate that splits the nation down the middle. Questions have been raised about possession of guns and gun violence. The most vocal lobbyist for gun possession has been seen in the National Rifles Association which wields considerable power. Different States in the United States have various laws that allow for private bearing of guns. The failure to reach an amicable solution has been mainly due to competing interests between those in support of gun control and those in opposition.
On Wednesday April 17, a bill brought to the Senate to introduce gun control in the United States following the horrific tragedy at the Sandy Hook Elementary was defeated by senators amidst claims of bribery by pro-gun lobbyists. This move came despite the massive efforts of President Obama in getting the gun control legislation passed. In support of the bill, it was argued that the legislation would have the effect of protecting children from gun violence. However, such an argument is not as easy as it appears. There is also a worry that the same legislation may end up trampling on the constitutional rights of persons which would have the same effect of exposing children to violence. Noting that controversy abounds as to the issue of gun control, it is important to explore the origin of the gun wielding rights with a view to forming concrete measures.
The Second Amendment to the United States constitution gives the right to citizens to own guns. It 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. So, besides just conferring a right, it also confers justification. It is imperative to examine the import of this provision in order to ventilate on the gun control measures. The Second Amendment justifies the private rights to bear arms on the footing that militias are necessary for the security of a free state. This is further predicated on two factors, that the militias are the citizens who act as soldiers for their own security as opposed to the professionally trained soldiers. Secondly, this provision is premised on the belief that in any event the government invades the rights and liberties of citizens, it is usually in a bid to destroy the militia. More so, it is the case that the Free State mentioned by the provision does not refer to state rights but rather refers to a country free of tyrannical rule.
Further, it is also necessary to consider the question over whether the right to bear arms as provided in the Second Amendment refers to an individual or a collective right to bear such arms. It would appear that such rights refer to individual or private rights to bear arms. These rights are not created by the government but exist in nature. However, governments are important in securing such rights. As a result, each person is able to secure equal protection for his individual rights whilst respecting those of others. It would therefore follow that since citizens are a militia, formed for the purpose of mutual protection of equal rights; it is the case that disarming the citizens deprives them of their moral as well as political existence.
On the other hand, it is the definition of militia and what persons it contemplates that has generated controversy. Gun control proponents have argued that the Second Amendment refers only to members of the militia in every sense of the word-that is state National Guard units and is not applicable to ordinary individual citizens. In fact, some federal courts have ruled in favor of this argument. Proponents of gun control have also argued that the use of guns for private defense does not warrant constitutional protection from state regulation. Indeed, the strength of the individual’s liberty interests and the State’s regulatory interests must always be assessed and compared.
Further concerning the interpretation of the provision of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, controversy arises over the meaning of “people” as provided therein. It is the argument by gun control proponents that the word ”people” refers back to the object announced in the Amendment’s preamble. They therefore opine that the words serve the purpose of reminding that it is the collective action of individuals having a duty to serve in the militia that the provision seeks to protect and no more. The ultimate purpose of the provision is to protect the State’s share of the divided sovereignty created by the Constitution. They therefore proffer that the words ”the people” as used in the Second Amendment does not enlarge the right to keep and bear arms to include the use or ownership outside the context of service in a well-regulated militia.
Besides gun control by way of passing a legislation banning the private rights to arms which has not seen the light of day, other measures have been implemented in a bid to rein on the criminals who take advantage of the right to perpetrate crime. These measures have come by way of a regulatory framework for guns based on licensing and registration of such guns. The oversight mechanism advanced by this regulatory framework includes the registration, licensing and regulation of sale of guns. This system o gun control is similar to the one governing motor vehicles. The licensing part involves the identification of persons who have attained the minimum age set by law. It is followed by training on the use and safety of the gun and screening. On the other hand, registration of the firearm is usually for the purpose of linking each gun with its owner as registered. This enables the police to trace the offender in case such gun is used in commission of crime. Similarly, registration of guns is useful for insurance purposes.
The major purport of licensing and registration of guns is to ensure fidelity to the law. This is of utmost important since the federal law bans certain category of persons from owning guns owing to their past conduct. As such, this method of control allows for the withdrawal of the privilege to own a gun once the person is in breach. This control also has the effect of establishing a sense of accountability which creates an incentive for the gun owner in enforcing the law. Would it be otherwise, then a private gun owner would easily transfer a gun like ordinary commodities with devastating consequences.
Works Cited
Babat, D. The Discriminatory History of Gun Control. Rhode Island : University of Rhode Island, 2009.
National Institute of Justice. Gun Violence. 26 October 2010. 19 March 2013.
Tahmassebi, S B. "“Gun Control and Racism.”." George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal 2 (2007): 69-86.
