There is no dispute to the premise that guns are highly useful weapons that can assist in effective law enforcement. At the same time, guns are used as a tool that could inflict unwarranted fear and harm against the security of people. Depending on its uses, guns could either be helpful or destructive, hence the reason why regulations for gun ownership are essential inclusions in any contemporary legal systems.
Indeed, there are several legitimate restrictions on gun ownership. History has become witness to the harmful effects of irresponsible gun handling, particularly when it comes to crime. In particular wars where advancement of military technology has enabled the usage of guns, people – military men and civilians alike, have fallen victims to bullets. Within that context, guns have ruined the lives of people, especially those who are innocent but died as a result of unwanted involvement in warfare. At the same time and still within the context of war, guns are instrumental to the success of military campaigns, which paved way for different kinds of reformations as seen in the formation of nations, the emergence of new political and economic orders, and the rise of increased social involvement. Thus, it cannot be ignored that guns have played key roles throughout history, yet its two-pronged nature is reliant on the very fact that it can destroy human life, regardless of purpose. Thus, it is essential to emphasize that there are legitimate restrictions on gun ownership, and that those are made with varying degrees of wisdom, in the name of preserving security within society through the maintenance of the constructive use of guns.
Main Argument
Harmful weapons like guns have been met with legal restrictions in order to warrant responsible usage of those tools. As early as the 14th century, different pieces of legislation regulating such weapons have surfaced. The 1328 Statute of Northampton passed in England, which remains in effect to this day, is a fine example of an early law restricting the use of weapons in public places. In the United States of America (US), further developments on legal restriction of weapons followed. In 1692, bringing weapons deemed “offensive” to the public eye has become illegal in Massachusetts. Kentucky followed suit with another legal development when it passed a law forbidding people to bring weapons that are concealed in 1813. The Sullivan Law, a New York statute passed in 1911, brought forth greater restriction as it is the first US law that made licenses as a requirement for procuring handguns. Legislative developments throughout history shows that legitimate restrictions on gun ownership has preceded from different contexts, the common factor being the concern for maintaining security (Murray, 1975).
The Gun Control Act of 1968, (US Code title 18, chapter 44) is the primary federal statute of the US that imposes restrictions and consequent penalties to gun owners. Section 922 of the Act renders punishments for those who illegally possess firearms, the scope of which includes falsified licenses and identification details and doubtful behavior and nature of possessors such as felony conviction, drug addiction and mental defectiveness. The same section also has restrictions for those who do not possess a license that allows them to possess or transport firearms, alongside those who are licensed. Those who violate Section 922 are punished under Section 924, which sets the punishment to a $5,000 fine and/or five years imprisonment, depending on the offense. Section 1202 penalizes convicted, discharged or mentally incapacitated felons, former US citizens and aliens who are involved in any firearms trade with a $10,000 fine and/or two years in prison. The code has also amended the 1934 National Firearms Act, which went after civilians who owned heavy and rare firearms usually associated with gangsters. The amendment expanded the scope of said act to include other weapons that are highly destructive (Batey, 1986).
Verily, there is an assertion that the 1968 Gun Control Act and other similar legitimate restrictions can be enforced effectively as long as those laws are strictly construed by the judiciary. Without applying a strict sense of construction to those laws, authorities might incur the dangerous tendency of obsessively enforcing such laws which might impinge on the rights of ordinary citizens. Employing a liberal interpretation on gun ownership restrictions can lead to unjust prosecution on any gun owner, which should not be the case considering that gun ownership is deemed legal as long as it is in consonance with the law. Hence, the effectiveness of legitimate restrictions on gun ownership is also reliant on how those laws are enforced. If those laws are strictly construed, then gun owners have more tendencies to experience abuse under the hands of authorities who interpret the law in a liberal manner (Batey, 1986).
Counter-Thesis
Indeed, legal restrictions to gun ownership do exist under prevailing laws. Yet, there are questions as to whether those restrictions are actually necessary due to studies showing that those do not necessarily lower violent incidents related to guns – a premise which affects the legitimacy of those restrictions. In other words, the legitimacy of laws restricting gun ownership has found a formidable challenge in the form of studies reflecting that firearms-related violence has not lowered down despite the enforcement of those laws. Murray (1975) has answered three sets of hypotheses with research showing that laws restricting gun ownership has not affected access to firearms and decreased hostility involving firearms. The first set of hypotheses, which suggested that gun ownership restrictions could lower down cases of violence related to firearms, was debunked due to findings that do not establish a firm relationship between the two variables. In the second set of hypotheses, which asserts a possible effect of gun laws on access to guns, it was shown that there was no significant effect to such. As for the third set of hypotheses, findings have shown that violent cases due to firearms are not affected with any change in access to firearms (Murray, 1975).
The legitimacy of gun restriction laws have come under further attack in other studies. Zimring (1968) submitted the hypothesis that laws on gun restrictions would not necessarily reduce cases of criminal homicide because any person who wishes to kill someone will resort to other weapons that are not just limited to guns. Yet, it is also submitted that such is difficult to establish, as other factors such as the “dangerousness” of the weapon would come to the fore (Zimring, 1968). In another study, Zimring (1968) criticized the research conducted by Alan S. Krug that is included in the Congressional Record. He noted that Krug’s studies are lacking key points in establishing that there is no connection between firearms restrictions and firearms-related violence and access to firearms. Murray (1975) further asserted that empirical studies tackling such connections are lacking – a fact which may lead to the inference that the target of gun ownership restriction laws to reduce firearms-related violence is not being met effectively. In that context, the legitimacy of laws restricting gun ownership can be challenged due to lack of evidence that those restrictions are fulfilling desired results – the reduction of firearms-related violence.
Response to Counter-Thesis
The mere presence of the state in the realm of regulating gun ownership could serve as an effective safeguard to curtail gun-related violence, despite studies showing that there is no direct relationship between those restrictions and the amount of firearms-related violence (Murray, 1975). As asserted by Batey (1986), strict construction of gun ownership restriction laws is essential in order to maintain the real purpose of those laws. If the judiciary continues to allow liberal interpretations, there is a greater tendency that those laws could be abused, much to the peril of civilians who own guns. People recognize that gun ownership is a right that requires responsibilities as provided by law, hence it is important to enforce such laws properly. Otherwise, there is a high chance that the laws itself might lose its legitimacy, in the sense that people would begin to doubt the purpose and effectiveness of those laws. As of yet, a direct connection between strict construction of gun restriction laws and the amount of firearms-related violence has not yet been established, but such a favorable assessment could further fortify the argument that such laws, when implemented properly, can duly fulfill its purpose to curb the violent consequences of gun ownership and usage. In that way, the legitimacy of gun restriction laws could be strengthened and further emphasized.
Conclusion
Legitimate restrictions to gun ownership exist and are essential to maintain responsible gun ownership. As firearms are seen as highly harmful weapons, it is reasonable to have those laws in place, provided that they are enforced the proper way. It may be true that present studies have reflected a weak correlation between gun ownership restrictions and the amount of violent cases related to negative firearms usage. Nevertheless, it is important to assert that having those laws in place indicate that the state’s presence in enforcing proper gun ownership is prevalent. It is, indeed, a paramount interest of the state to institute and enforce laws that regulate gun ownership. Security remains an important aspect of any discussion concerning firearms, and laws ensuring such form an essential part of the state’s legal framework ensuring the safety of its constituents. Within that purview, retaining the legitimacy of those laws is equally important, as it calls on the people – guns owners or not, to cooperate towards imposing greater responsibilities in owning firearms.
Maintaining gun ownership restriction laws in places is a favorable proposition that will help send signals to potential violators that the use of firearms in violent ways is not tolerated by the state. However, with studies showing that there is no direct relation between those laws and incidence of firearms-related violence, optimum measures that will strengthen moves to curb down firearms-related violence through gun ownership restriction laws have yet to be developed. Indeed, there should be extensive efforts to develop pieces of legislation that can further decrease the cases of negative gun usage. It is important to take off from the trends brought forth by legislative developments in order to cultivate laws that are more effective in curbing down violent incidents related to firearms. In that way, legitimacy towards gun ownership regulations could grow due to the increased effectiveness of those laws. Gun owners would not feel aggrieved anymore due to the dangers brought about by gun ownership laws that would allow a liberal construction. At the same time, the negative effects of gun ownership could soon meet enhanced countermeasures, which could make gun ownership coexist within a peaceful society. In other words, ownership of guns could be possible within a peaceful setting as long as there is legislation that is more effective and compelling in regulating gun ownership.
References
Batey, R. (1986). Strict Construction of Firearms Offenses: The Supreme Court and the Gun Control Act of 1968. Law and Contemporary Problems, 49(1), 163-198
Murray, D. (1975). Handguns, Gun Control Laws and Firearm Violence. Social Problems, 23(1), 81-93.
Zimring, F. (1968). Games with Guns and Statistics. Wisconsin Law Review, (4), 1113-1126.
Zimring, F. (1968). Is Gun Control Likely to Reduce Violent Killings? The University of Chicago Law Review, 35(4), 721-735.
