The Right to Bear Arms and the Second Amendment
Dennis AuBuchon
February 07, 2009
The right to bear arms is engrained in the U.S. Constitution in the 2nd Amendment. This right seems to constantly be in the news and various states and municipalities have fought to provide laws which enhance the control to make their citizens safe. While there is ample reason in many cases to enact certain restrictions these laws cannot prohibit the right of citizens to bear arms for their protection and the protection of their families. We live in a world that has increased violence and for those citizens who want them they must be able to defend themselves and their families.
The U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed this right through a decision involving the banning of hand guns in the District of Columbia. The decision was issued June 26, 2008. This right has been constantly involved in court battles. However, their constantly seems to be efforts in impede this right. What local, state and national government legislators must understand is that regulations on firearms have a valid purpose but that criminals do not pay attention to the requirements under the law. Any efforts to provide more control must not take away the prerogative of law abiding citizens to own handguns. A link to the details of the Supreme Court decision is below:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
There are valid restrictions which states have a right to impose. Three of these examples are: those who have been deemed by competent doctors to be mentally ill, those who have committed felonious acts and restricting youth access under certain conditions. This does not imply that all access to guns by youth should be restricted. Many families have fathers and sons who hunt and enjoy that sport. Any restrictions currently in place or to be created should not affect this activity. There have been cases where children have accessed guns thought to be properly secured but resulted in shootings and/or death of innocent individuals. In these cases law enforcement organizations must examine the circumstances and determine if prosecution is warranted. It is important to state that those who own handguns should be responsible for controlling access to them when they are not at home. While some circumstances may not warrant prosecution for contributing to the commitment of a crime handgun owners must take precautions to prevent unauthorized use.
For restrictions involving the mentally ill from purchasing or using firearms it may presently be difficult for a licensed seller to know they have this condition. There should be some method for these merchants to have access to this information so dangerous situations are not created. The key to the restriction on the mentally ill involves the need for anyone who sells firearms to know a person has this condition. It is right to have procedures in place to verify that a person is of sound mind to own a handgun. While there may be cases where a person has a mental condition that has not been diagnosed each circumstance must be examined and actions taken where necessary to correct any system flaws. Background checks should be performed before a person should be able to purchase any firearm.
I want to state that for the most part I am not in favor of gun control legislation except for the issues discussed in this article. I do feel there needs to be some type of registration and control as to who owns a gun, the type, where it is registered, the purpose for purchasing and other pertinent data which helps to ensure the safety of citizens in all areas of our country. While some may give false reasons for owning firearms we cannot simply ignore an individual right to own a firearm. This right does have some restrictions as identified earlier in this article. Implementing these types of requirements if not already in place in applicable states must be done carefully. The right of citizens to own firearms must not be restricted. The process for becoming a gun owner should involve a waiting period. This is necessary so some verification can be made as to the soundness of the mental capacity of the registrant and that they have not committed any felonious act thereby disqualifying them from ownership.
Training is also necessary for potential gun owners to assure the proper use and maintenance of any firearm including safety provisions to restrict unauthorized use by any individual. The training is important to assure the safe use of any firearm not only for the owner but a safe environment for the rest of society when the gun is in use. In the following paragraphs I discuss current legislation being processed in the U.S. House of Representatives and references to state gun regulations. This information is being provided to help compare what is already in place within the states and the differences in the current legislation. Comments are also provided on the content of the legislation being processed as to the validity and reliability of the process described in the legislation.
There is a new law that has been introduced in the U.S. Congress that warrants a review by Americans as to the viability and appropriate conditions on the sale of guns. The title of this act is: Blair Holt´s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009. This act was introduced in the house under house resolution 45. I have read the current version of this resolution as it is now written and there are many areas addressed which are already included in some state regulations. The language of the current legislation and the details leaves much to be desired. This legislation creates a critical precedent regarding interstate and intrastate commerce and what government can or should regulate.
One requirement which raises questions is the submittal of a request to own a firearm to the Attorney General. Another is the creation of a central database to track the sale of firearms. This at best would be cumbersome and not include any firearms owned by criminals as they would not register their guns for traceability purposes. History has proven that criminals never pay attention to the requirements of the law that is why they are criminals. Restrictions or steps to obtain a license by law abiding citizens would not impact criminals.
Another requirement which raises questions is the creation of a central database to log all firearms. Current statistics indicate there are millions of firearms owned by Americans. The activity surrounding the ownership, transfer and use of firearms would create, in my opinion, an impossible situation to reliably keep the data accurate and current. The upkeep and accuracy of this type of activity would not be efficient with the changes and additions of gun owners in the United States. There are already various requirements within each state on tracking the ownership of guns. State and local control is best as they are more knowledgeable of personal activity in their respective areas. Some states have more strict requirements while others are more open.
Many of the requirements provided in this house resolution are already addressed within each state to various degrees. While I agree that some consistency is necessary I do not feel it is the federal government´s responsibility to maintain such information. State law enforcement organizations already talk to each other on various issues which are exhibited in news coverage of criminals fleeing from one state to another. Getting the federal government involved through the requirements of this bill would add additional burden to states for providing such information. This would also add costs which in today´s economy many government agencies are already strapped for financial resources to keep their departments and states financially sound.
The gun regulations by state are in the thousands by some reports and I do not propose to state that I know all the various requirements that each state has implemented. Gun regulations are a necessity but the manner in how they are written and what they require of individuals and states must be carefully weighed before they become law. While some laws are in place at the federal level, I feel the state and local law enforcement organizations are the best source to keep tabs on individuals who want to own or already own guns. The links below are sites which offer information as to the current gun regulations by state along with any notes that may be in place for certain requirements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Alabama
http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Federal/Read.aspx?id=74
Other issues in the legislation state it is not meant to preempt any state law or subdivision of a state or political entity. This being the case I fail to see the purpose in the bill except to identify specific conditions which should be considered for enactment by states and their political entities. I do find there are valid suggestions in this bill which in some cases it appears that some states have already enacted. The information provided in the links above show the detailed requirements enacted by each state through tables citing specific conditions that some if not all states have enacted. There are also paragraph explanations associated with some states which help to understand the approach specific states have taken regarding the safety of their citizens. The tables and conditions identified are more specific than the current legislation being considered. This should be cause to reexamine the content of this bill and what it would add to other regulations already in place at the state and local levels. Regardless the intention of this bill is to not preempt laws already enacted at the state level.
To summarize this article I would like to say I am not condemning the apparent purpose for the current legislation being proposed in the U.S. House of Representatives. However, the current requirements may create a situation where it may be impossible to maintain the data in the database so described above. Another aspect is creating a completely new requirement under the Attorney General or his department to approve every gun registration in the United States. Criminals do not pay attention to gun laws. While it is the responsibility of the Attorney General to be the top law enforcer of government regulations short of the Supreme Court I feel it is not the responsibility of the Attorney General to monitor all gun registrations in the United States. The primary duties of the Attorney General is to oversee the enforcement of federal laws, give guidance to federal departments, give suggestions on proposed legislation, oversee the operations of U.S. District courts, U.S. Attorneys and prosecute or defend for the government all civil actions or proceedings in which the United States is concerned.
This bill would broaden the present duties of the U.S. Attorney General and burden the department of justice with managing requirements that may be impossible to accomplish with accuracy and reliability. While Congress does have the authority to issue laws requiring states to follow they must do so using common sense. Additional requirements enacted in this bill or any other that adds nothing to laws presently in place is both a waste of time and resources best spent elsewhere in the present financial crisis. I have only touched on some portions of the proposed legislation. This bill should be properly examined and compared to state requirements in place before this bill proceeds further in the House of Representatives. It is the right thing to do.
The U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed this right through a decision involving the banning of hand guns in the District of Columbia. The decision was issued June 26, 2008. This right has been constantly involved in court battles. However, their constantly seems to be efforts in impede this right. What local, state and national government legislators must understand is that regulations on firearms have a valid purpose but that criminals do not pay attention to the requirements under the law. Any efforts to provide more control must not take away the prerogative of law abiding citizens to own handguns. A link to the details of the Supreme Court decision is below:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
There are valid restrictions which states have a right to impose. Three of these examples are: those who have been deemed by competent doctors to be mentally ill, those who have committed felonious acts and restricting youth access under certain conditions. This does not imply that all access to guns by youth should be restricted. Many families have fathers and sons who hunt and enjoy that sport. Any restrictions currently in place or to be created should not affect this activity. There have been cases where children have accessed guns thought to be properly secured but resulted in shootings and/or death of innocent individuals. In these cases law enforcement organizations must examine the circumstances and determine if prosecution is warranted. It is important to state that those who own handguns should be responsible for controlling access to them when they are not at home. While some circumstances may not warrant prosecution for contributing to the commitment of a crime handgun owners must take precautions to prevent unauthorized use.
For restrictions involving the mentally ill from purchasing or using firearms it may presently be difficult for a licensed seller to know they have this condition. There should be some method for these merchants to have access to this information so dangerous situations are not created. The key to the restriction on the mentally ill involves the need for anyone who sells firearms to know a person has this condition. It is right to have procedures in place to verify that a person is of sound mind to own a handgun. While there may be cases where a person has a mental condition that has not been diagnosed each circumstance must be examined and actions taken where necessary to correct any system flaws. Background checks should be performed before a person should be able to purchase any firearm.
I want to state that for the most part I am not in favor of gun control legislation except for the issues discussed in this article. I do feel there needs to be some type of registration and control as to who owns a gun, the type, where it is registered, the purpose for purchasing and other pertinent data which helps to ensure the safety of citizens in all areas of our country. While some may give false reasons for owning firearms we cannot simply ignore an individual right to own a firearm. This right does have some restrictions as identified earlier in this article. Implementing these types of requirements if not already in place in applicable states must be done carefully. The right of citizens to own firearms must not be restricted. The process for becoming a gun owner should involve a waiting period. This is necessary so some verification can be made as to the soundness of the mental capacity of the registrant and that they have not committed any felonious act thereby disqualifying them from ownership.
Training is also necessary for potential gun owners to assure the proper use and maintenance of any firearm including safety provisions to restrict unauthorized use by any individual. The training is important to assure the safe use of any firearm not only for the owner but a safe environment for the rest of society when the gun is in use. In the following paragraphs I discuss current legislation being processed in the U.S. House of Representatives and references to state gun regulations. This information is being provided to help compare what is already in place within the states and the differences in the current legislation. Comments are also provided on the content of the legislation being processed as to the validity and reliability of the process described in the legislation.
There is a new law that has been introduced in the U.S. Congress that warrants a review by Americans as to the viability and appropriate conditions on the sale of guns. The title of this act is: Blair Holt´s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009. This act was introduced in the house under house resolution 45. I have read the current version of this resolution as it is now written and there are many areas addressed which are already included in some state regulations. The language of the current legislation and the details leaves much to be desired. This legislation creates a critical precedent regarding interstate and intrastate commerce and what government can or should regulate.
One requirement which raises questions is the submittal of a request to own a firearm to the Attorney General. Another is the creation of a central database to track the sale of firearms. This at best would be cumbersome and not include any firearms owned by criminals as they would not register their guns for traceability purposes. History has proven that criminals never pay attention to the requirements of the law that is why they are criminals. Restrictions or steps to obtain a license by law abiding citizens would not impact criminals.
Another requirement which raises questions is the creation of a central database to log all firearms. Current statistics indicate there are millions of firearms owned by Americans. The activity surrounding the ownership, transfer and use of firearms would create, in my opinion, an impossible situation to reliably keep the data accurate and current. The upkeep and accuracy of this type of activity would not be efficient with the changes and additions of gun owners in the United States. There are already various requirements within each state on tracking the ownership of guns. State and local control is best as they are more knowledgeable of personal activity in their respective areas. Some states have more strict requirements while others are more open.
Many of the requirements provided in this house resolution are already addressed within each state to various degrees. While I agree that some consistency is necessary I do not feel it is the federal government´s responsibility to maintain such information. State law enforcement organizations already talk to each other on various issues which are exhibited in news coverage of criminals fleeing from one state to another. Getting the federal government involved through the requirements of this bill would add additional burden to states for providing such information. This would also add costs which in today´s economy many government agencies are already strapped for financial resources to keep their departments and states financially sound.
The gun regulations by state are in the thousands by some reports and I do not propose to state that I know all the various requirements that each state has implemented. Gun regulations are a necessity but the manner in how they are written and what they require of individuals and states must be carefully weighed before they become law. While some laws are in place at the federal level, I feel the state and local law enforcement organizations are the best source to keep tabs on individuals who want to own or already own guns. The links below are sites which offer information as to the current gun regulations by state along with any notes that may be in place for certain requirements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Alabama
http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Federal/Read.aspx?id=74
Other issues in the legislation state it is not meant to preempt any state law or subdivision of a state or political entity. This being the case I fail to see the purpose in the bill except to identify specific conditions which should be considered for enactment by states and their political entities. I do find there are valid suggestions in this bill which in some cases it appears that some states have already enacted. The information provided in the links above show the detailed requirements enacted by each state through tables citing specific conditions that some if not all states have enacted. There are also paragraph explanations associated with some states which help to understand the approach specific states have taken regarding the safety of their citizens. The tables and conditions identified are more specific than the current legislation being considered. This should be cause to reexamine the content of this bill and what it would add to other regulations already in place at the state and local levels. Regardless the intention of this bill is to not preempt laws already enacted at the state level.
To summarize this article I would like to say I am not condemning the apparent purpose for the current legislation being proposed in the U.S. House of Representatives. However, the current requirements may create a situation where it may be impossible to maintain the data in the database so described above. Another aspect is creating a completely new requirement under the Attorney General or his department to approve every gun registration in the United States. Criminals do not pay attention to gun laws. While it is the responsibility of the Attorney General to be the top law enforcer of government regulations short of the Supreme Court I feel it is not the responsibility of the Attorney General to monitor all gun registrations in the United States. The primary duties of the Attorney General is to oversee the enforcement of federal laws, give guidance to federal departments, give suggestions on proposed legislation, oversee the operations of U.S. District courts, U.S. Attorneys and prosecute or defend for the government all civil actions or proceedings in which the United States is concerned.
This bill would broaden the present duties of the U.S. Attorney General and burden the department of justice with managing requirements that may be impossible to accomplish with accuracy and reliability. While Congress does have the authority to issue laws requiring states to follow they must do so using common sense. Additional requirements enacted in this bill or any other that adds nothing to laws presently in place is both a waste of time and resources best spent elsewhere in the present financial crisis. I have only touched on some portions of the proposed legislation. This bill should be properly examined and compared to state requirements in place before this bill proceeds further in the House of Representatives. It is the right thing to do.