Introduction
The Brandy bill was enacted and passed in 1993. The provisions of the bill are that individuals undergo thorough scrutiny before they can be allowed to purchase and carry firearms within the United States. This is attributable to the need to give firearms to responsible people who cannot use them appropriately to avoid havoc within the society . However, this bill has been criticized larges since its incorporation simply because different people have different opinions regarding the people. While some view it as an appropriate measure to control the ownership of the dangerous weapon, others view it as an infringement of the rights of the citizens. Over the recent past, based on court decided actions, court jurisdictions have ruled out against the constitutionality of the brandy bill. (Roll). This paper addresses arguments by judicial systems against the constitutionality of Brandy bill.
Discussion
The brandy law has been taken to hinder the rights and freedom of individuals within the United States by limiting their right to accessibility of firearms meant for self-protection. The bill called for a five-day waiting period in order for an individual to be confirmed eligible to purchase a handgun. Essentially, individuals would be scrutinized by federal government agencies regarding their conduct in society in order to determine if they were eligible to purchase and possess firearms. Since its inception, the bill mandate the FBI controlled national instant criminal background check system to counter check in issues which could deter an individual from purchasing and carrying a firearm . The law has so far prevented over 2 million gun sales to individuals who have been identified as prohibited in this regard.
A recent legislative action proved the brandy bill unconstitutional. It has been identified that the gun control act, whereby the brandy bill is part of it contains a severity clause. This implies that if a statute is identified to include a severity clause, then the presumption is that all the provisions of the statute identified as being unconstitutional are also severable. For instance, users of unlawful substances are prevented from purchasing and possessing firearms (Timothy). However, it may not necessary mean that such an individual will cause harm in society by using the firearm. As such, since there is no proof beyond reasonable doubt with regard to the adversities that can result from such an individual possessing the gun, it is therefore appropriate to make such a statute unconstitutional. It only stands to prevent citizens from enjoying their rights and freedoms while granting others the same.
In a system where fairness and justice prevails, then it is necessary to ensure that all the members of the society are subject to similar rights and privileges. The constitution gives all citizens similar rights and privileges, which should not be violated by statutes, which seek to benefit some members of the society while playing unfairness on others . Due to the interests presented on behalf of the larger public, the hearings in judicial set up were scrutinized with regard to the significance of the brandy bill in controlling the rate of crime. Statistically, there was no major difference noted in this regard concerning the frequency and occurrence of crimes. As such, this proved that the bill did not necessarily lead to the achievement of the intended purpose. Different people understand different clauses in the constitution differently and as such, placing a ban on firearms or preventing some individuals from purchasing firearms deprives them of the right to ownership of property and self-protection rendering them helpless even in instances where they could help themselves appropriately.
The legal argument made within the judicial action notes that, “the brandy bill stands in utter contempt of the second amendment, which does not prohibit states from passing gun-control laws but does forbid the federal government from doing so” (Roll). This clearly implies that the federal government was acting beyond its areas of concern by approving this bill and incorporating it into law. As such, based on the constitution, such a law should emanate from the state governments and not the federal government. This clearly indicates unconstitutionality of brandy bill.
Conclusion
Work cited
Chi, S. C. "Gun Control War Targets Our Worst Nightmares." Insight on the News, Vol. 10, No. 23 (1994): pp 4-32.
Roll, John. Brandy bill declared unconstitutional by the district court in Arizona. 1994. Retrieved from, http://www.eskimo.com/~bpentium/articles/bradybil.html. (Accessed 10 March 2014).
Timothy, Johnson. 20 years after the brandy bill enacted, conservative media still attacking gun background checks. 2014. Retrieved from, http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/28/20-years-after-brady-bill-enacted-conservative/198265. (Accessed March 10, 2014).
Hugh, LaFollotte. "Gun Control: The Issues (1). (Exchange)." Criminal Justice Ethics, Vol. 20, No. 1 (2001): pp 2-33.
