Post 4: Due 3/8
The Supreme Court is hearing a case that asks the Court whether the Second Amendment should be incorporated. Background on the case can be found at National Public Radio. For your post address the following questions:
*Should the Second Amendment be incorporated and applied to the states?
*What rights should gun owners have? What types of guns should be allowed? What types of restrictions should be allowed? What parameters do you think the Courts should use when deciding the limits of the Second Amendment?
Due by 7pm on Monday, March 8th. Also Happy International Women's Day for the ladies in the class on 3/8. ;)
posted by M Aby @ 12:58 PM
38 Comments:
The up and coming McDonald case to the Supreme Court will no doubt have a big impact on the future of the nation. The case deals with the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and whether such a right should be incorporated by the 14th Amendment. For me, this is a messy issue. I think that under the Constitution, this right should be incorporated and applied to the states. This right is no different than the 1st Amendment rights and the others incorporated by the 14th Amendment. I like what McDonald’s attorney Alan Gura said: "If you can buy contraceptives and that's your way of extending your personal security, then one must assume that the right to buy a handgun for defense purposes is also going to be secured as an aspect of liberty." (1).
While I think that the right should be a state and federal protection, I don’t agree with the right in the first place. I think that guns are bad. Not only are they dangerous, but they promote and allow violence. In 2009 there were 64, 389 firearm injuries and 29,569 firearm fatalities. (2).These are ridiculous numbers that could be significantly decreased if firearms were banned altogether. Since guns will never be completely gone, however, I think that there needs to be significant boundaries and restrictions on guns. First of all, I think that gun owners should be allowed to own the gun, but usage of them in public is not guaranteed. In Minnesota right now, gun owners have the right to concealed carry with a permit on-hand. (3). I believe that concealed carry should not be an owners right, however, because when you feel the need to hide your gun, to me that says that you’re going to be using the weapon for some sort of illegal activity. With that, I don’t mean to say that you should just walk around with your gun in your hand, but rather that there should be no need for the carriage of a gun at all.
If guns are going to be permitted, I believe that only certain types of guns should be allowed in the possession of your average citizen. I like Chicago’s laws of only allowing long guns in homes (1). Handguns, although more “convenient” for the gun owner, are also easier for people to steel, prone to accidental firing, and used more in violent crimes and domestic abuse (1). I also think that selling restrictions need to be elevated. The loophole of gun conventions selling and such needs to be eliminated. Every single gun seller should have background checks for the buyer and things like that to ensure that not just anyone (convicted criminals and the like) are obtaining such weapons.
Back to the 2nd Amendment controversy, I think that the Court, in deciding the limits of the right to bear arms need to be thinking about what will be best for the nation as a whole. They need to take into account the dangers of guns and the amount of injuries and fatalities such gun ownership causes. I think that in the end, the Courts decision will work itself out, but it will be an intense and interesting one to watch unfold.
(1) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
(2) http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/national-firearm-injury-and-death-statistics
(3) https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/getpub.php?type=s&year=current&num=624. 714
The McDonald case currently being heard by the Court raises the question of whether or not the Second Amendment right to bear arms should be incorporated to the states (3). I think that the right to bear arms should not be incorporated. Individual states and cities have varying crime rates and threats in their communities; for example, Chicago’s rate at which crimes are committed with handguns is 87 percent (1). By allowing residents of Chicago to own handguns legally, that would just open the door to a higher percentage rate and possibly a lot more deaths due to handgun crimes. McDonald’s lawyer argues that, “If you can buy contraceptives and that's your way of extending your personal security, then one must assume that the right to buy a handgun for defense purposes is also going to be secured as an aspect of liberty" (2). I think this statement is crap, because a woman’s right to use contraceptives is hardly comparable to the right to legally own a handgun. While some may argue that they both involve human lives, the scenario in which they would be used is entirely different. Women use contraceptives to prevent a baby from being born, and the reasons for why they would do so are endless, from having too many kids currently, to economic reasons or health problems, to simply not having the resources available to raise a child. To have a handgun in possession, however, suggests that it would be used in a violent manner, either as self-defense or irresponsibility or plain cruelty.
I believe that people should have the right to own a gun according to the state’s policy. At a minimum though, the state should require a special permit for gun ownership, which can only be given once fingerprints have been taken and a background check has been completed to insure that the person’s criminal record is completely clean. I also think that gun owner’s rights should be different, as in more limited, with families that either have children or are expecting to have children. Handguns especially are easy for children to get a hold of and cause an accident, which is entirely not safe (2).
One of the big questions facing the Court is which part of the Fourteenth Amendment should be considered if they were to incorporate the right to bear arms to the states. Conservatives are hoping that they will consider the due process clause over the privileges and immunities clause, because they believe that if the Court uses the privileges and immunities clause to incorporate gun rights, then the liberals would want the Court to use that clause to open up A LOT more rights to the states. Some of these rights may include healthcare or welfare rights (2).
1. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
2. http://themoderatevoice.com/65087/will-mcdonald-v-chicago-incorporate-2nd-amendment-rights/
3. http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-1521
The text of the second amendment reads: “ 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.” (1) I think it’s the misconception that the first amendment gives everyone the right to wield a gun that often is what becomes hazy. This amendment was specifically set up to enable citizens of the United States to defend themselves from foreign invasion. Luckily, we now currently have the largest (and most overfunded) military in the world I think that this isn’t necessarily an issue. Currently I don’t see any evidence that there is a necessity to have a militia to protect the security of our state. If there were, I believe that the right to bear arms should be given to those who are part of that militia. Therefore, I believe that the court interpreted wrongly the decision that it made in 2008. However, I believe that rights are basically rights, and that any rights someone had at the national level should also be applicable at the state level. I think that Gura makes a good point here that it doesn’t make sense to have a different law in different cities because one is state based and one is federally controlled (2). Therefore, I think correctly interpreted, this amendment should be applied to the states. Therefore, I think Illinois should have the right to raise a militia in the case of the nations freedoms coming under attack.
However, I think that a ban on handguns is probably a fantastic idea. I think that if we just look into this case a little bit we will get proof enough. Mr. Mcdonald is asking to be able to have access to his guns so that he can “fend off youngsters in his Chicago neighborhood.” (2)By which I think it is fair to read, shoot and potentially kill people. That is scary. Guns are made to kill people. I don’t think that owning weapons of death is analogous to freedom of speech. Or contraceptives, Mr. Gura. John Effer writes in an article for the Institute of Policy Studies that in “South Korea… citizens frankly think that we are all militant fundamentalists when it comes to guns. In South Korea, gun control laws are about as strict as they get. When a gun is found on the street… it becomes the focus of national attention.” He says that many people fear that a disarmed population would “lead directly to tyranny and even genocide. South Koreans would be surprised to learn of this correlation, since they overthrew tyranny and today live in a democracy, all without guns.” (3)
I believe that rifles should be allowed in rural areas, where they are less often used for crimes and there is less population density, and less of a gun problem. To blithely claim that everyone should always have the right to have a gun ignores the reality of gun problems in many major cities. It is clear to me that the authors of the first amendment really had no idea what new guns would exist and how those “arms” would be used. Benjamin Wittes, a writer for the Brookings Institute says “There are lots of good reasons why our values today might not coincide with those of the Founders on the question of guns. The weapons available today, for one thing, are a far cry from muskets, which could never have yielded the kind of street violence America sees routinely now… After more than two centuries of constitutional government, however, it's safe to assume that neither an armed citizenry nor a well-regulated militia really is "necessary to the security of a free State." The opposite seems closer to the truth; just ask the Bosnians or the Iraqis. And elections, it turns out, do the job pretty well. To put the matter simply, the Founders were wrong about the importance of guns to a free society.” [5]
Another point that often gets overlooked in the discussion over gun control and gun rights is the effect that it has on other countries. Frida Berrigan points out that “The United States is the world's largest arms-supplying nation. In 2007, the United States entered into over $19.1 billion in Foreign Military Sales (FMS) agreements with other nations and for 2008, sales of military goods and services mushroomed to $34 billion — triple the volume of the Bush administration's first year.” This gun exportation largely fuels the violence that happens between drug cartels and Mexican military and police. Thousands of people die each year because of gun related homicides in the Mexican drug trade. 90% of guns seized after shooting and raids near the American border are traced back to the U.S. “This is our right to bear arms in practice. And it's not saving lives or guarding liberties. A glut in arms production and patchwork state-by-state laws regulating the sale of guns means that it's relatively easy for narco-traffickers and criminals to get their hands on everything from assault rifles to handguns, as well as all the ammunition they need.”
[1] http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
[2] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
[3] http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/the_religion_of_guns
[4] http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/too_many_guns
[5] http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/0319governance_wittes.aspx
This comment has been removed by the author.
I don’t think that the Second Amendment should be incorporated into the states. As the National Public Radio broadcast said, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of incorporating the Second Amendment to the states, hundreds of gun laws are extremely likely to be challenged [1]. These laws would include safety lock laws, locked container laws, concealed weapon laws, gun bans on public property, registry laws and so many others [1]. I think it would be super creepy to have people with guns wandering around. I believe that gun laws should be passed to protect citizens, not to enable trigger-happy people.
The man presenting this case, Mr. Otis McDonald of Chicago, said he wanted a hand gun to “…fend off youngsters…” [1]. Is he insane? ‘Fending off youngsters’ is NOT a legitimate reason to use a gun. Simple solutions, such as asking them to leave or calling the police for trespassing, would be much more appropriate. It really makes me nervous that the Supreme Court is comfortable with this argument for allowing people to have whatever type of gun they want at home.
In addition, incorporation of the Second Amendment would not specify what type of weapon one could own. The broadcast talked about having bazookas and machine guns legal under the Second Amendment [1]. “I think most people would say that a bazooka is probably not even an arm for self defense. The machine gun is a more difficult question” said Paul Clement of the NRA [1]. What? Is that a joke? The machine gun is a more difficult question? There is no way I’m ok with my neighbor or anyone wandering around, LEGALLY PROTECTED, with a machine gun! If that happens, we won’t be governed by laws anymore, we’ll be governed by force and that is far beyond the definition of counterproductive, that’s more within the realms of suicidal.
Allowing the types of guns we do now is allowing enough. “In In 1998, 30,708 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths - 12,102 (39%) of those were murdered; 17,424 (57%) were suicides; 866 (3%) were accidents; and in 316 (1%) the intent was unknown.” [3]. Another site confirms that 56.5% of these deaths are credited to suicide [2]. Imagine how many more deaths there would be if people just had random different types of guns lying around.
Right now, there are an estimated 192 million firearms in civilian hands in the United States [4]. Gun owners have their rights. If they didn’t, those firearms wouldn’t be in their hands. The restrictions we have now help to try to protect American citizens as best we can while allowing those who want guns to have them under certain circumstances. I believe that the Court should remember that the government’s primary function is to protect the people. Enabling them to legally kill to solve their problems completely counteracts the foundation of our government.
1)http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=124210232&m=124228257
2)http://www.tincher.to/deaths.htm
3)http://college.cengage.com/english/resources/research_guide/2e/resources/case_study.html
4)http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hgbanfs.htm
People have a right to own guns and possess them in their homes. Hence, I believe that the Second Amendment should be incorporated in the case. In my opinion, it is only logical that an issue as divisive and powerful as gun rights should be standardized across the nation. Currently, different states, counties, and municipalities all have different gun control restrictions. For example, the current Chicago law that is being challenged before the Supreme Court prohibits citizens from possessing firearms “unless such person is the holder of a valid registration for such firearm” (1). This law is extremely similar to a Washington D.C. law that was ruled unconstitutional last year. Why should two similar United States cities have very different gun control regulations? From an equality standpoint, it just does not make sense.
Additionally, this case encompasses questions about the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court is faced with the task of deciding to what extent the post-Civil War Congress wanted the amendment to be taken in preventing discrimination. As ratified, the most relevant part of the Fourteenth Amendment states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (2). The constitutional question that arises before the Supreme Court is to what extent this guarantee applies to gun rights. Senator Jacob Howard, partial author of the Fourteenth Amendment (3), answered this question before Congress in 1866, “To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be – for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature – to these should be added the personal rights guaranteed by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press;…the right to keep and bear arms” (1). Modern legal scholars and historians, such as Stephen Halbrook have reiterated this idea. He stated, “The framers of that amendment understood from hard experience that the rights to personal security and personal liberty are inseparable from the rights to self defense and to keep and bear arms” (1). Clearly, the intention of Congress was for the Fourteenth Amendment to protect gun ownership as one of the fundamental rights of American citizens.
Secondly, gun control solves very few, if any, violence issues. Separate, recent studies by James Wright and Peter Rossi, Gary Kleck, and Brandon Centerwall have all proved gun ownership does not cause crime. For example, between 1973 and 1992, gun ownership increased by approximately 45 percent whereas the homicide rate fell by almost 10 percent nationally. The reverse is also false: gun control laws do not reduce crime. Specifically, Gary Kleck and E. Britt Patterson proved that crime rates and the number of violent crimes and homicides is in no way proportional to the existence of gun control laws, stringency of these laws, or enforcement. Lastly, gun control laws do not prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Studies reveal that only seven percent of criminals’ handguns are obtained from retail sources that are recognized by the government. Furthermore, in the same study, 75 percent of felons stated that they would have “no trouble obtaining a gun when they were released” despite existing gun control laws (4).
First and foremost, I believe that people should have the right to own guns. For people like Otis McDonald, owning a gun is not about enhancing his ability to kill someone; it is about feeling safe. He merely wants the ability to prevent and stop break-ins in his home (5). Theoretically, even if he does use his gun, he is not acting preemptively; it is against someone who has already invaded his home with the intention of stealing his personal belongings. On the contrary, gun restriction in public places is necessary.
Where I see the most need for gun restriction is with convicted criminals. As with the previously cited studies, past criminals have little or no difficulty obtaining a gun despite already stringent gun laws. Making gun laws more restrictive for all will not resolve this problem. I believe that the government needs to target these specific individuals and drastically increase the penalties against them for weapons possession. Furthermore, it is logical, for the good of society as a whole, to restrict privately owned high-tech military and artillery weapons. There is no sensible reason that an individual would need to possess such a formidable firearm, and, frankly, these high caliber weapons are a menace to society.
1: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162-5354594-504383.html
2: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/
3: http://www.heritage.org/research/governmentreform/wm925.cfm
4: http://catb.org/~esr/guns/aiming.html
5: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
After reading up on the recent court case McDonald v. City of Chicago, I found some of the arguments to be very interesting. This topic of discussion is especially thought provoking, because I believe that I generally think all of the rights in the Constitution and the Amendments should be explicitly evident in all laws, however, the right to bear arms is in a different league. Although the Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, I do not necessarily believe it needs to be applied to the states, or really applied anywhere. I think that the courts ruling in 2008 was surprising, and makes way for a very complicated road (1). In my opinion, the court made a mistake, that will now be paid for by many other rulings that are expected to follow this precedent. In one way I can see that yes, because it is essentially a fundamental right that the United States was built on, that the right to bear arms should be applied in the United States. However, I think that the statistics on handguns, such as the fact that 87% of violent crimes are committed with them, and the fact that they can be set off very easily causing accidental deaths, makes me think differently. (1)
I feel as though the right to bear arms made a lot of sense when the Constitution was written. At the time, citizens were very concerned with their safety, and they wanted to make sure that they could protect themselves against enemies, especially because they were a very young country, and uncertain of their future. Today, however, things are very different. The main goal of the Constitution is to make sure that the happiness and well being of citizens was kept in tact. (4). Although some may argue that keeping a handgun in the house makes them feel safe, I tend to think that a tool that is only used for killing shouldn’t really even be legal, especially for regular citizens, especially to carry around with them whenever they please. I understand that this may be an infringement on the Second Amendment, however I also feel as though we need to take into consideration the repercussions of guns. At the end of the day, the only real purpose of a gun is to kill. Yes, people can use it to intimidate criminals, and yes if used in self defense, the firing of a fatal gunshot can technically be legal, however they are ultimately tools that cause turmoil in society, and lead to illegal actions. That being said, I hope that the court rules against legalizing handguns in Chicago.
Gun control in America is a very touchy issue. I tend to go against the ways of the NRA and think that gun usage should be very limited, and there should be strict provisions on who and what type of guns people should have. I understand McDonald’s wish to have a handgun in his home for protection, however, I don’t believe that he should legally be able to have one. He says he wants to protect himself, however the fact that he didn’t grow up with guns, and isn’t properly trained on how to use one makes me concerned (2). I think there are more effective ways for protection, and because of the many problems handguns cause, they should be kept illegal. If it were up to me, I would make it so there was very strict provisions nationwide on the purchasing of a gun. All those who are in ownership should be required to take a government class on gun safety, because, as I stated before, the only real use of a gun is to kill. I can see hunting guns being legal to have kept in the house, because they are much less likely to be stolen, or used in street crimes, and hunting is a past time of many Americans.
To me, gun control seems to be constitutional because of the nature of guns. In one article, McDonald’s attorney stated that, "If you can buy contraceptives and that's your way of extending your personal security then one must assume that the right to buy a handgun for defense purposes is also going to be secured as an aspect of liberty.” I completely disagree with this statement. The fact is, the nature of guns is to kill. Contraceptives aren’t assistants in murderous crimes, or the fatal weapon that kill adults and children. A woman’s right not to get pregnant, because she wishes to keep her life the way it is, and the fact that modern technology allows her to do so, has very minimal to do with keeping a handgun in the home for “protection.” (1) I think the courts should consider the safety of American citizens first when deliberating this issue. Although the Second Amendment exists, I think it is out of date, and that in modern times guns, especially handguns, really have no need to exist, or at least there should be ample restrictions on the usage of them. I think if the courts go off of the fact that citizens have the right to live in a safe environment, and the fact that guns have no other purpose than to kill, they should be able to at least restrict handguns. (3)
1. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
2.http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hIWgd9nlX0S5df61V1VxuPif8gXgD9E62PI00
3. http://kosu.org/2010/03/supreme-court-to-hear-chicago-gun-rights-case/
4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-j-zaremski/if-gun-ownership-is-a-rig_b_483908.html
I strongly oppose incorporating the Second Amendment, which would take away states’ rights to impose limits on gun ownership and use. Those who support incorporation of the 2nd Amendment feel that it was intended to protect self-defense and self-preservation, whereas the liberal opposition argues that the amendment was not meant to protect an individual’s right, but rather rights for an army (3). Although incorporation of some amendments has greatly benefited our society, this is an instance where I see potential for the exact opposite (2). Incorporating this amendment would lead to increased gun ownership--- and therefore, a strong possibility of increased gun-related accidents and crimes (2). Although the right to own or carry a gun may be integral to safety in some parts of the country, it can put others in more danger. States and cities should have the right to determine what is allowable and just regarding the ownership and carrying of guns (1). Continued localization of these laws lets officials and politicians decide what is best, and what will be most effective, for their specific area (1). This case is interesting because the conservatives whom usually follow a ‘strict-interpretation’ doctrine cannot do so in this case without compromising their personal pro-gun beliefs (4). This is because the Founders meant for the Bill of Rights to apply only to the national government (4). Instead of using the “due process” clause of the 14th Amendment as in previous incorporation cases, some are leaning towards the “privileges and immunities” clause, which would change precedent (3).
1. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
2. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/supreme-court-leans-toward-incorporation-second-amendment
3. http://www.chicagoguncase.com/
4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/28/AR2010022803985.html
This is an extremely difficult issue to deal with. The 2nd amendment gives a right to bear arms, the Bill of Rights gives this under the federal government. The “14th Amendment, says: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” (1). The Supreme Court has already knocked down on “In D.C. v. Heller, the Court held that banning all handguns violated an individual right to right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. Because the Second Amendment only applies directly to the federal government, however, Heller was just the first shoe to drop. The next question was whether the individual right to arms also applies to the states” (1). “But the decision that there is a right to keep a gun in one's home did not extend beyond the federal government and its enclaves such as Washington” (5). It's a big step, and if the Supreme Court did rule it was constitutional it would lead to many more questions to come. D.C. v. Heller has definitely left a stepping stone for McDonald v. City of Chicago. “everything from laws banning concealed weapons to those banning the carrying of weapons in public without a permit, and laws that issue a carry permit only upon a showing of good cause or necessity” (2). It would almost come to the point that it would be very hard for the Supreme Court to keep up with that is constitutional and what isn't when it comes to bearing arms. It seems overwhelming and I don't see how making this constitutional would do any good for the overall public but create more chaos. “For gun owners and lawmakers, the case called McDonald v. City of Chicago presents one bottom line: If the court agrees that the second amendment covers state and local governments, as seems likely, some but not all gun restrictions will be blown away” (3). This just seems insane to me. If the Supreme Court ruled yes for this case, I think they would be out of their minds. Yes, the Bill of Rights may say we have a right to bear arms but actually letting people walk around with guns and such and so many other things would be brought up to be questioned if McDonald v. City of Chicago was deemed constitutional. It doesn't seem right by any means to bring these things up to be questioned. Handgun violence is just another last thing citizens need to worry about. The numbers of people killed most certainly would increase because of the availability of them.
I think that anyone who owns a gun should have a permit and it should be registered. Nobody should just own a gun. Even though many people can be trusted with guns some people have them for the wrong reasons. If people have them for legitimate reasons then they shouldn't care if they have to have it registered. Only people who have a gun and a permit should be able to obtain guns, and the guns allowed should be based on if the people get the permit and have registered. If someone has a background of criminal charges then they shouldn't be issued a gun permit or be registered. This man who is suing the
The parameters I think the Supreme Court should use when deciding the limitations of the Second Amendment are that it is just unsafe for people to have guns. People don't need guns, it isn't something the average person needs. If someone needs it for hunting or other purposes they should have to have the gun registered. “The Second Amendment says, "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 Supreme Court has only directly addressed the meaning of the amendment once, upholding a law in 1939 that restricted sawed-off shotguns on the grounds that such weapons had no "ordinary military use” (4). Even though there is little precedent to go by I believe it is just flat out unsafe in today's society to allow people less restrictions on guns, it just isn't practical.
1-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704548604575097811657663250.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
2- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
3-http://www.sacbee.com/2010/02/28/2570493/supreme-court-tackles-gun-laws.html
4-http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/world/americas/19iht-scotus.1.11246138.html?_r=1
5-http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/02/AR2010030203746.html?hpid=moreheadlines
The case of McDonald v. Chicago brings into question whether or not the Second Amendment should be incorporated and applied to the states. To me, the incorporation of the Second Amendment is something that should have been done a while ago. As the constitution says, the people have a right to bear arms, and I don’t think it is right to deprive someone of their rights. McDonald v. Chicago is a case in which Otis McDonald, a retired maintenance engineer living in Chicago. McDonald filed suit against the city of Chicago after he was not allowed to own a handgun, even though his house has been broken into 3 times (1). The 2008 decision striking down the D.C. law that banned possession of handguns can be used as support for McDonald (2). To me, it is not fair to ban the owning of handguns in one city, and allow it in another.
In the days preceding the oral arguments in this case, many are questioning if there is a way to apply the Second Amendment to the states, while still creating some sort of limits on gun ownership (3). Justice Paul Stevens, for example, said wondered if there is a way to protect ownership in the home, without allowing people to run around the streets with guns. However Chief Justice Paul Roberts and others are against this idea of limitations, knowing it will be subject to political process (3). A similar debate occurred in District of Columbia v. Heller over whether felons can own guns, which Roberts think is likely to be part of this case as well. Whether or not the outcome includes restrictions on gun ownership, most people already believe the McDonald case is going to expand the Heller case (4).
For me, I think the right to own a gun in the US is a right that all should have. After the Heller decision I do not see how it is still to allow states to restrict gun ownership laws. I think every American should have the right to own a gun and not be limited to one type of gun. As far as restrictions I think that the biggest restriction on gun ownership should be on felons. I think especially for a felon in which their crime was committed with a gun, should prevent them from being able to own a gun. As far as stricter gun ownership laws, I think that those who actually follow these laws have a gun for their own protection, while those who buy guns illegally present a larger problem and are the ones who are using them illegally. The right to bear arms is a right we have promised to us in the Constitution and I think it is important to incorporate it.
1. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/05/AR2010030502873.html
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/02/AR2010030203746.html
4. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/us/03scotus.html
I believe that gun rights should be incorporated to the states. People have the right to be able to protect themselves from invaders of their houses and those who try to harm them. The law in Chicago itself did not ban all guns. It still allowed residents to keep long guns in their homes as long as they were register with the police department (1). And the crime rate ROSE SIGNIFICANTLY after the ban was put in place (2). John Kass of the Chicago Tribune wrote that Chicago only had two classes that could hold firearms, "The criminals and the politicians". Politician made it so they could go around with guns or surrounded by security guards with guns. (3) This ban is creating a system where people are now vulnerable to the criminals. Those who enacted the laws have put themselves above the ban. The law makers in Chicago don't have to worry about their mansions being broken into or their kids getting in trouble walking home from school. This case was brought forward by people who want to protect themselves, not a gun association or criminals. They should have a right to protect themselves, their families, and their homes from violent criminals.
If a person passes a strict background check they should be able to purchase a gun. Criminals and the mental insane should not be able to own guns. On the front of the mentally insane, if a mental default stops you from being tried of a crime, you should have your privilege to a lethal weapon taken away. Criminals have already infringed on another person rights and thus can have their taken away a result of that. You should have the right to buy handguns or hunting rifles (I don't think you need military grade weapons to protect your home).
I think the Court should institute stricter gun regulations and I think the Courts should punish owning an unauthorized fire arm. Restrictions need to be in place to make sure that those who could do great harm are kept way from guns. The Courts could have Congress make laws about where the guns must be kept (i.e. in a an area a child has not access to).
(1) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=awIn1M4tWxi8&refer=worldwide
(2) http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/01/supreme.court.gun.control/index.html?iref=allsearch
(3) http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=522844&Ntt=gun+rights
The Supreme Court case of McDonald v Chicago is sure to be important. It deals with whether or not to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states. Chicago has a ban on handguns in the city. McDonald argues that this law goes against his right to bear arms. The court has already ruled against a similar law in Washington, D.C. in the case of D.C. v Heller. It will be interesting if the court will rule with their previous decision or set a new precedent. In my opinion, the court should rule against incorporating the Second Amendment. According to Beena Soloman, the constitution was created to allow states to enact regulation that suit their community (1). She says this a constitutional value and I agree with her. The amendment was set up to make sure the federal government didn’t take away a citizen’s right to own firearms. This is more of a protection than a fundamental right, and doesn’t need to be extended to the states. I like to live in a country in which the government makes decisions that slowly increase my safety and well-being. Over the past years, cities, counties, and states have made provisions that have restricted guns in order to decrease violence and death (2). Incorporating this amendment will allow these steps forward to fall apart. These laws are not trying to take away rights; they are just trying to make that particular community safer. The law in Chicago, which bans handguns, has been in use since 1982 (3). It is proven that 87 percent of violent crimes are caused by handguns (1). If the court sides with McDonald, do all restrictions on guns become unconstitutional? Lawyer Jim Feldman states that if this were true, “that one would have the right to a machine gun, bazooka, and who knows what else” (1). I agree with Feldman. This case is a slippery slope that gives far too much power to gun rights activists. Indeed it is good to have a gun to go hunting, or maybe start a revolution if things go really bad, but when a gun endangers people it needs to be controlled. However, I don’t think the court is going to side with me. They seem poised to favor the rights of McDonald. The fairly conservative court is taking strides to becoming very activist. The one thing that could help Chicago is that the NRA has been given 10 minutes of McDonald’s half hour of arguing before the court (4). They could take away from McDonald’s arguments. If the court does side with McDonald, I hope there are not repercussions that hurt the American people.
1) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
2) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/04/ED2M1CATLC.DTL
3) http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/states-rights-vs-gun-rights/
4) http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/10/the-nra-muscles-into-mcdonald
The case of McDonald v. Chicago, concerning the Second Amendment's right to bear arms, is one that interests me greatly. I firmly believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right in America and should be extended to the states as well as the federal government. The Second Amendment states “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 (3).” I think this says it all: the right to bear arms is plainly in the Constitution and we should not ignore it. I firmly support the 2008 decision by the Supreme Court that ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right as they struck down a law prohibiting handguns in our nation's capital (1). They voted down this law 5-4 (4). The case in question today brings up weather or not a law banning handguns elsewhere in the country (not under federal jurisdiction) is constitutional or not. I think not. The man who is contesting this law simply wants to be able to own a handgun to protect himself against frequent break ins into his home in his Chicago neighborhood (1). I definitely think he should be allowed to have his gun. The Supreme Court already ruled that the Second Amendment was an individual right so why can't we extend it to the rest of the nation? Many people argue that having guns in a home encourages violence for children and gives them an opportunity to harm themselves or others. That, to me is bull. I've had guns in my house from the day I was born and nobody in my family have ever shot someone. Yet I feel safe at night that if something ever were to happen, my father would be able to protect himself and the rest of my family. What's the difference between say the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms? In my eyes, they are both individual rights that the Constitution protects and because of this, I don't really see a reason why the Second Amendment shouldn't be incorporated (1). 44 states already protect their citizens' rights to own guns, so is it really that big of a deal to just extend it to them all (2)? I think not. Another argument for incorporating the Second Amendment and applying the right to bear arms to the states is that a study done by economist Carl Moody of William & Mary college found that after the Chicago ban on handguns was implemented, the crime rate in that city skyrocketed (2). Clearly that was an ineffectual way of reducing crime in Chicago. My final argument for applying the right to bear arms to the states is that, during the drafting and ratifying of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”, an individual's right to keep and bear arms was frequently talked about (4)(3).
I think the types of guns that should be allowable would be handguns, rifles, shotguns, and guns of that nature. One article I read talked about people owning machine guns and bazookas, which I though was absolutely ridiculous. Who in their right mind is going to purchase one of those? And how are they going to obtain one legally? That does not seem plausible. I think gun owners should be allowed to keep and bear their arms at appropriate times. Things like protection and hunting are appropriate in my mind. Courts have already given states the right to place certain restrictions on gun owners, such as who may own them, what types of guns are allowed, and places they may be carried (2). Obviously convicted felons shouldn't be handed a gun, much less a machine gun, and be allowed to carry it into a school. I think certain precautions should be taken to ensure safety but not at the risk of giving up what I feel to be an individual right.
1.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
2.http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/01/supreme.court.gun.control/index.html?iref=allsearch
3.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/us/03scotus.html
4.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/05/AR2010030502873.html
No. I do not believe the Second Amendment should be applied to the states. I think this will only cause much more controversy, confusion, and accidents. If states had certain gun control rights some states would be more lenient on gun control rights than others thus causing more dangerous accidents in the states with more lenient rights. People would just move to the states with less strict regulations. I am in favor of uniformity gun possession laws. It is a serious issue and the whole nation should use the same rules. The United States ranks highest in gun deaths among the richest nations. (1) I believe only incorporating the Second Amendment to the states will greatly exceed our death rates even more. In 1998, there were 30,708 gun related deaths (2) and in 2006 there were 30,896 deaths. (3) These numbers have remained fairly constant. Incorporating the Second Amendment will only result in more annual gun related deaths.
In the first place I am not even a fan of owning a gun in a household. Guns in households do more harm than good. I understand that people like to hunt. I have many family and friends that hunt. I prefer people that own guns to hide them in storage or keep them in a safe place outside of the household. This could be locked up in a storage shelter away from the cabin. Gun owners should have very strict rights. It is necessary to make sure everyone follows the same gun safety rules. Gun owners must have a permit to own a gun. Responsible adults that own guns should make sure their guns are locked in a safe place. In addition, they should make it impossible for children to obtain the guns. Firearm deaths of children and teens have decreased from 5,793 in 1994 to 3,184 deaths in 2006. (4) Although children dying from guns in horrible, the death rate has decreased substantially. I do not believe it is the government’s fault for all the gun related deaths in the county. It is just unfortunate that some adults aren’t mature or responsible enough to own a weapon. How can the government not allow somebody the right to own a gun because they feel he/she isn’t responsible to own a gun? This is impossible to do because those people are protected by the Second Amendment. The court should allow people to obtain guns with strict restrictions but allow the government to take the guns away if they feel they are a danger. Incorporating the Second Amendment to the states will only make some state gun laws vague and will even more allow irresponsible people to obtain guns. District of Columbia, Alaska, Louisiana, Wyoming, and Arizona have the highest death rates per state. (5)
Citations:
1. http://contexts.org/graphicsociology/2009/03/11/gun-deaths-measured-daily/
2. http://college.cengage.com/english/resources/research_guide/2e/resources/case_study.html
3. http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
4. http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-not-guns-report-2009.html
5. http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
Gun ownership and control has been a controversial issue within the United States for decades, and will continue to do so for decads to come, no matter the outcome of this case. Personally, I believe that people have the right to own a gun, but that fire arms should be tracked and monitored as best as possible. Those who are for stricter gun laws seem to believe that harsher restrictions on guns will decrease gun-related accidents and violence. This is probably true, but only marginally. The real problem, illegal fire arm trafficking, will probably remained untouched even with some legislator's proposed gun regulations. So why not incorporate the second ammendment? Obviously, there should be some restrictions. We should mandate gun safety classes and utilize proper forms and paperwork to keep track of who has a gun. Gun safety classes should include provisions that teach parents how to keep guns away from minors. As far as the type of gun, I think hunting rifles, handguns, etc. should all be allowed. To those who'd contest that such easy access would lead to tragedies like school shootings, I'd put forward the fact that people with the intention to do violence, particularly mass violence, won't be perturbed by stricter gun regulations or not incorporating the 2nd ammendment. They'll find a way to get their hands on a gun. It is my view, then, that the 2nd ammendment should be incorporated. I think the courts should allow states the power to not allow certain individuals to obtain guns if, for instance, they have a previous history of violence or criminal intent. Other than that, the Supreme Court incorporating the 2nd ammendment should come without any other strings attached.
Finally, an issue that I feel strongly about! I believe that the Second Amendment of the Constitution should never, EVER be incorporated and applied to the states. This is something that I feel would be disastrous for the United States. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court is debating over wheter the right to bear arms should be incorporated or not (1). I feel that this part of the Constitution should not be taken so literally. I understand that people like their guns. But the argument that guns can be used to protect oneself is essentially useless, in my opinion. If the average American is allowed to have a gun, criminals will also be able to get them. This leads to a higher crime rate, more gun-related deaths, me afraid to leave my house, etc.
The symbolism behind guns is violence. Guns kill people! Giving people the right to walk around displaying guns gives our society an overall image of violence. Currently in Minnesota, gun owners have the right to carry a concealed weapon with a permit on-hand (2). This is supposedly making people feel ‘safer’, though I personally don’t feel any safer knowing that the random person walking behind me may or may not have a gun that they could fire at me at any given moment. In addition, the numbers don’t agree with the argument that guns keep us safe. The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths among the world’s 36 richest nations (3). “If you have a country saturated with guns – available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed – it’s not unusual guns will be used more often,” said Rebecca Peters, a John Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence (3). Of all of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States ALONE counted for more than 45 percent! (3).
In Japan (the country with the lowest gun-related death rate) very few people own guns (3). It is strictly regulated, with strict permits and rules that people must follow (3). I think that the right to bear arms doesn’t need to be taken away entirely, but it should be strictly regulated (though personally I wonder, why do you like your guns, America?). I believe that the right to carry a concealed weapon should be taken away because carrying weapons in public promotes violence in our society. By removing guns, we could decrease gun-related deaths, and help Mr. McDonald to feel more secure in his home (1). Honestly Mr. McDonald? You should just buy a better lock for your door instead of lobbying for the right to have a gun so you can “fend off youngsters” (1). The Second Amendment should never be incorporated and applied to the states. I might need to move to Canada if it does!
(1) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
(2)
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/getpub.php?type=s&year=current&num=624. 714
(3) http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html
Recently, the Supreme Court has decided to hear a case that pertains to the incorporation of the 2nd amendment into the states (1). I think this would be a terrible idea. For one, it would perpetuate America’s fascination with firearms. Gun violence has been glorified in movies for decades, and America’s youth is exposed to violence on television every day. The rate in our country of gun deaths per 100,000 people is almost five times higher than the next closest country (2). The level of gun ownership across the world is directly correlated to the number of deaths by gunfire (2). My point in all of this is that the easier it is for citizens to obtain a firearm, the more difficult gun problems the country is going to have. Additionally, many of the people in this country who have a gun shouldn’t even have one in the first place. Take a woman that my mom works with, for example. She and her husband are avid gun owners, and her husband often works late at night. One night, her husband came home early, and she thought that someone was attempting to break into her house. She grabbed the gun they keep next to their bed, and snooped around the house with it pointed in front of her, only to discover her husband. That is a very disturbing story to me. That is how people accidently get shot. I for one, feel much less safe knowing that there are people like this waving gun guns around their own households than I would if there were far more strict gun control policies than there are now.
That isn’t to say that I don’t believe it should be illegal for an American citizen to obtain a firearm. In rural areas where homes and families are much more spread out and there is less chance of an incident, I think it would be fine for more lenient gun control. In the cities, however, the U.S should try to model their system more like the United Kingdom. In the U.K, they have some of the strictest gun control policies in the world, and have enacted legislation in response to several gruesome shootings (3). That is the key point, that their country is willing to respond when something awful happens. In 1987, a man killed himself and 16 others with two semi-automatic rifles and a handgun. The U.K then tightened up their policies by furthering restrictions on rifles and firearms with exploding ammunition (3). I would feel so much safer if Congress did something, anything, in response to such terrible instances as Columbine, Virginia Tech, or the recent shooting at Ft. Hood. The fact that random citizens can walk our city’s streets with concealed weapons is frightening to me. I think the Courts need to realize that this is an issue in which many people are killed. It is regarding an issue that concerns life and death, and the statistics show that the more guns there are, the more people die.
(1) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
(2) http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
(3) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7056245.stm
Gun control and the Second Amendment rights that all Americans are entitled to have always been a point of contention in the United States, and continue to be a source of conflict and discontent among different groups within the country. The upcoming McDonald case is undoubtedly going to continue this trend, with a new look on the same issue (1). The case takes a new look at gun control and gun rights in the context of incorporating the Second Amendment to the states, which is something that many support (1). It deals with incorporating gun rights with the 14th amendment, something that has never really been discussed to this extent. I disagree with this idea, since I don’t think that the Second Amendment and its included rights are apt to our modern society, nor do I think that they are necessary for Americans to be safe and continue operating in their world.
I disagree with the notion that guns are necessary to operate in a city and to be safe, as explained by Otis McDonald (1). There are more than 70,000 guns licensed every year in the United States, and these guns both allow violence and almost endorse it (2). Many critics of gun control laws speak out that guns don’t kill people when they are in the hands of good, innocent and law-abiding citizens. However, this doesn’t include the number of people who buy guns from original gun owners without the law’s consent, as well as all those who illegally steal or buy guns (2).
The Second Amendment itself is an outdated amendment that doesn’t apply to modern American society in the same way that it applied to eighteenth century America. The right to bear arms can be seen in a way that it applies to military and national guardsmen, but it is a stretch to say that it should apply to untrained and unsupervised civilians who end up hurting themselves more than using guns for self-defense (3). In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. 10,369 of these were committed with the help of firearms (3). There is no place in the United States for this to continue.
Despite this, I believe that the Second Amendment will continue to survive, and if people insist on owning firearms, then there is little that anyone can actually do to change that. Guns are iconic in America, a symbol of a supposed freedom and a danger and rogue attitude that many Americans cherish. If people are going to own guns, then I think there should be increasingly difficult screenings to purchase one. Also, the availability of guns should be limited, making it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on one. Licenses should be continually scrutinized, and the places people can carry weapons should be reduced. I think that the Court can use its best judgment in firearms cases, but like the McDonald case, the public’s opinion has come into play a lot (1). It’s important to remember that guns are dangerous, and that any decision regarding Second Amendment rights will be controversial and difficult to enforce.
1) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
2) http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/nation/guns/gunpart2.html
3) http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
There are many reasons why the Second Amendment should be incorporated within the list of selectively incorporated Amendments of the Constitution. First, Chicago Mayor Daley makes this point: “We don't have a society by guns. If you want to make a society by guns, then you arm everyone, and you do away with the police, and ... you have chaos." (1) It does not make sense for firearms, specifically handguns, to be concealed of carried throughout the large, populated city of Chicago. To refute what Chicago citizen Otis McDonald had to say; A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. (2) Also, “the presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.” (3) Otis is worried about violence occurring in his house but he has the facts backwards, which is common among victims of prior crimes; he will actually be more likely to be exposed to violence if he has a firearm in his house. By looking at the statistics above, there is clearly a correlation between owning a handgun and the amount of violence one is exposed to. Another fact that disturbs me is when McDonald says that it is an inconvenience to have to use a shotgun at his home instead of a handgun. I don’t think that firearms should be allowed in homes in the first place, and a shotgun has the capability to do serious damage. The problem is that house-owners who own firearms that do not have the killer instinct may freeze in the heat of the moment, which only gives the criminal another weapon to use against the house-owner. I think that having a firearm in a house as “security” is only setting oneself up for demise. Another problem I have is the fact that they ban automatic firearms, but they find legality in firearms. I do not see how one is unconstitutional and the other is not. A gun advocate says, “a bazooka is probably not even an arm "for purposes of the Second Amendment." But, he concedes, "A machine gun is a more difficult question." (1) I do not see how he can justify the use of firearms but see that machine guns are too violent. They both are used for the same means; to take someone or something’s life.
I think that gun owners should have the rights to bear arms, but I do not think that storing guns at home is a smart choice. There are many facts that show the dangers of storing firearms at home that some owners are oblivious to, or they are simply ignorant. What strikes me most is the amount of danger that follows the purchase of a firearm in the home. The evidence is overwhelming: “American children under 15 are 12 times more likely to die from gunfire than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined” (2).
I think that the courts need to look at the facts involved in bearing arms to make their final decisions. There will be a lot of evidence in the State’s argument about how dangerous firearms are when they are stored in the house. I think that there substantial evidence that would conclude the necessity of the state having the power to ban weapons, but I do not think the Supreme Court will agree with me. After all, this is the Second Amendment that is being discussed.
1) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
2) http://www.stophandgunviolence.com/facts.asp
3) http://www.securityworld.com/ia-425-the-facts-about-gun-violence.aspx
Since the 1900s, the Supreme Court has been selectively incorporating the Bill of Rights into state and local laws, expanding the rights past the federal and national government and making them closer to the people. Therefore it was no surprise 2 years ago when the court ruled for the first time that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms was an individual right and not a right guaranteed for military purposes as it had implied (1). I am in agreement with the viewpoint that the 2nd Amendment should be incorporated and applied to the states, due to the fact that it is a fundamental right and the Supreme Court has already begun the process of the nationalization of the Bill of Rights. The gun ordinances are in fact an infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms described in the amendment (2). However, this issue must be approached cautiously and treated with care because there are two sides to it and certain circumstances must be taken into account.
The Chicago mayor claims that if you make society one that is composed of guns, you do away with the police and then chaos is unleashed (3). However, I don’t believe this is necessarily true. I think that although the right to bear arms should be extended to the states, there should be certain restrictions. Not everyone should be able to buy a gun. This makes logical sense. Convicted criminals with records, mentally unstable or incapacitated people, or those under legal age all compose the category of people that should not be allowed to buy guns. This means that stricter background checks must be implemented in order to prevent the sale of guns to these people. Also, the types of guns available should be able to be regulated. For instance, semi-automatic weapons that are appropriate in war fare should not be for sale in the private sector. These guns have one purpose and one purpose only: the harm of other people. However, handguns, rifles, and shotguns, can all be used in instances of recreational hunting or self-defense.
Although many argue that the ordinances and bans on guns keep the streets safe, I don’t see the entirety of the truth in this statement. The criminals will find ways to obtain guns either way....they are criminals. Therefore, by placing restrictions on gun ownership you are simply limiting the ability of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from the criminals. Criminals that know citizens have no weapons are far more likely to burglarize or terrorize their homes than if they believe a threat to be present. For these reasons I believe the courts should rule in favor of McDonald in the upcoming case, because the right of self-defense is one of the most fundamental rights in the Constitution. By restricting the use of weapons to match those of criminals, you are infringing upon that right.
Take for example the United States. We develop weapons to match those of other countries in order to defend ourselves. When we found out that foreign nations had weapons of mass destruction, we rushed to develop matching weapons of mass destruction for “protection”. It seems nations would be less likely to attack us if they know that there is a danger of retaliation of an even larger magnitude than the attack.
1.
http://www.wbur.org/npr/124210232
2.
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/09/supreme-court-may-decide-on-hearing-chicago-gun-cases.html
3.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
The new case before the Supreme Court, McDonald v. Chicago, is a sequel to the 2008 case in District of Columbia v. Heller (1). The 2008 case placed limits on what the federal government can do to regulate guns. I believe the 2nd Amendment should not be incorporated and applied to state and local laws in this new case.
As the Chicago Mayor Daley states, the federal government is not responsible for the “health and safety of the citizens of Chicago” (2). McDonald’s attorney has stated that the Constitution protects individual rights, and that the right to bear arms is the same as the freedom to worship and speak (2). However, I disagree with the idea that the right to bear arms is the same as other 1st Amendment rights. As Mr. Feldman, a lawyer for the City of Chicago, states, “Firearms, unlike anything else that is the subject of a provision of the Bill of Rights, are designed to injure and kill” (1). For this very reason I believe that states should be able to make their own gun laws to ensure the safety of the large majority of their citizens. Free speech and religion have always been regulated by the government and the states to keep people free from harm. While protests are allowed under 1st Amendment rights, violence within them is not. The same should hold true for firearms. I believe Jack Hunter said it best, “The Bill of Rights was never intended to be a list of individual rights, but a list of things the federal government could not do to the states” (3). The federal government should stay out of state gun regulations, and the 2nd Amendment should not be incorporated for the very reason of the safety of American citizens.
I don’t know much about guns, but I did some research and found the Gun Owners of America website. I thought it was absolutely ridiculous. As the mayor stated, “We don’t have a society by guns. If you want to make a society by guns, then you arm everyone, and you do away with the police, and … you have chaos” (1). We live in a nation that has a police force for a reason. By allowing ordinary people to carry firearms in public, we allow chaos and violence to be even more prominent in society. The NRA believes that 30,000 gun-related deaths with firearms in the U.S. every year are only a small price to pay to guarantee gun freedom (4). I believe gun owners should have some rights, pertaining to hunting and those types of things. However, there should be more strict regulations on handguns and weapons carried in public. The courts should make it very clear that states have the right to regulate gun safety as they see fit. I strongly believe that the 2nd Amendment should not be incorporated, as it is an issue of the safety of Americans.
(1) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
(2) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/us/03scotus.html?scp=6&sq=second%20amendment&st=cse
(3) http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/3079-partial-gun-rights-victory-could-have-other-implications
(4) http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom
The McDonald case represents a major decision for the Courts on two levels: defending the Bill of Rights and providing the proper jurisdiction to handle a severe case (1). The question the Supreme Court needs to decide is whether or not the right to bear arms belongs to an individual right or whether its used for military purposes and is the federal government allowed to decide, or is it the states? The article quotes that the Fourteenth Amendment reserves some rights to the states, but not all of them. The only precedent that the Supreme Court has to go on at this point is the current ban placed on the District of Columbia even though it was only specific to federal rulings. I believe that a handgun ban should not be placed personally because holding anything should be an individual right due to past cases that the Supreme Court has ruled on dealing with acts of free speech. I don't think Chicago will be more safe if handguns are banned anyways, but I think its under the states' jurisdiction to decide how to eliminate crime in the city, not the federal governments'. Imposing on the Bill of Rights has never truly been justified by the Supreme Court, so I don't see a need for the Supreme Court to be activist and decide against a previously ruled individual right in order to protect x number of citizens in one city. This ruling is obviously important in terms of setting precedent for state/federal rights in the modern age along with establishing grounds for the 2nd Amendment because it will clear up the difference between a mainly federal area such as D.C. versus a regular city such as Chicago, so it seems important to allow proper jurisdiction to the states to preserve the freedoms of the Bill of Rights.
(1) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
The second amendment says:
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 [4].
Personally I don’t think that the second amendment should be incorporated. For one, the second amendment is implying that the right to bear arms is for the intension of maintaining a militia [1]. As far as I’m aware our nation no longer has a militia because we now have several branches of professionals in the military. It is for that reason that I think that the second amendment should not be incorporated. To me it sounds like the founding fathers were trying to say that it was all right for military personal to have weapons. While I support the right for someone to protect themselves from intruders like Otis McDonald [2], I think that this right should be left to the states. I worry that if the right to bear arms was incorporated then, like Mayor Richard Daley says, “If you want to make a society by guns, then you arm everyone, and you do away with the police, and...you have chaos” [2]. The fact that 87% of violent crimes are committed with handguns [2], is also a worrying factor for me. I think that the second amendment shouldn’t be incorporated mostly for security factors and the fact that the actual text of the second amendment seems to imply that this amendment only counts when employed for maintaining a militia [1].
I think that there should be stricter rules governing how to get a gun to begin with. Perhaps when you take a gun safety class you also take some sort of “personality” test to figure out who should and shouldn’t have the right to a gun. That way they could identify who was getting a gun to protect themselves and who was getting a gun to shoot someone (though I will admit I don’t know what would identify the second answer). I think that since handguns cause a majority of the violence, then the decision that shotguns are “ok” should be applied [2,3]. For one it would be harder for someone to hide a shotgun under their clothing, and personally I think that if you don’t feel secure enough walking around that you feel you need a handgun on you then maybe you should invest in self-defense classes. For one, I don’t think we should be encouraging people to think that guns are the answer, that if you were attacked you should whip out your gun, that just sounds dangerous. I think that the Supreme Court should decide that since the second amendment talks about the militia (which we don’t have), that the fourteenth amendment doesn’t incorporate the second amendment.
Also I feel like the right to bear arms is not a fundamental right, like talked about in the fourteenth amendment. In Palko v. Connecticut Justice Cardozo defined a fundamental right “Even so, they are not of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty. To abolish them is not to violate a 'principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.” [5]. Where he says that if society could live without it, then its now a fundamental right [5]. Personally I think that society could live without being able to carry around a gun, so I don’t think the right to bear arms is a fundamental right. Lastly, if you think about it, doesn’t the “right to bear arms” sound a lot like, “we give you the right to join the military?”
[1]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/
[2]http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
[3]http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm
[4]http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights
[5]Claire Leitgen’s Supreme Court Paper, Palko v. Connecticut
When we talk about banning guns, we have to realize that doing so doesn’t magically make them disappear. Making a law that outlaws firearms will not get rid of them all together. So, what will banning guns accomplish?
I really am skeptical about how effective banning guns can be. In this story, we see a Chicago man who is upset that he can’t own a gun because it is illegal in Chicago. It’s quite ironic, though, because if he really wanted to he could get one hassle free. Chicago is ridden with gun problems, and has “just passed Los Angeles for the most underage gun-related homicides”.(1) But obviously, as we have seen with Mr. McDonald, guns are banned in Chicago. This hasn’t made the city any safer, though. In fact, “Economist Carl Moody of William & Mary College found that after the ban was put into place, violence immediately rose and the city is now more dangerous than before, relative to 24 of the largest American cities.”(1)
This leads me to believe that banning guns won’t solve the gun problem in America, and I can see why. By just saying that guns are illegal, doesn’t make them vanish. In fact, by making guns illegal, they become accessible only to criminals because the only way to obtain the guns is through, well, crime. Most of the people who legally own firearms will give them up after the ban, but those that own them illegally already (many who are criminals) won’t because they aren’t registered as gun owners and won’t be tracked down.
Using Chicago as a case study, we see that people will still find ways to obtain guns even when they are illegal. But if that is not proof enough, we could look at another example. After a deadly shooting in England in 1997, the UK passed “one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, banning its citizens from owning almost all types of handguns.” Many “law-abiding” citizens – amassing to 162,000 guns – gave up their guns to the government after the law was passed. However, this ban did not decrease the amount of gun-related violence in England. In fact, in the ten years after the ban was introduced, it has doubled.(2) This is very similar to the situation we are witnessing in Chicago. If guns are banned, then they become illegal. If they become illegal, then citizens who obey the law won’t have them. Citizens who defy the law, the people we call criminals, will find a way to get them if they don’t already have them. The saying goes, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”(2) It is a pretty snazzy line, if you ask me.
However, I am not so naïve as to believe that all people should be able to own guns. There should be restrictions on who can purchase guns, what types of guns can be bought, where they can be sold, who can sell them, etc. Simply letting everyone own a firearm in America wouldn’t make the country safer, either. There needs to be some sort of balance between completely outlawing guns and letting them into the hands of crazy people.
The Second Amendment reads, “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.”(3) I think that the amendment was intended to protect the states’ rights to raise a militia but also the individual’s right to own a firearm. However, if it was intended for strictly the protection of militias and not the individual, then I don’t believe an individual has the right to own a gun. Although I don’t see it that way, many people do. Regardless, the courts have ruled that individuals do have that right and therefore I think that the Second Amendment should be incorporated and the states should be bound by it as well. A right is a right and the Second Amendment is no exception.
1- http://www.dailyillini.com/blogs/different-perspectives/2010/03/03/ending-gun-violence-doesn-t-start-with-guns-it-starts-with-t
2- http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=2
3- http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/
I am aware that there are criminals in the American society, and why one would feel the need to express the right to bear arms, but I do not think handguns are necessary to do this. In the article it said that 87 percent of violent crimes are done with a handgun (1). I would like to know exactly what they constitute as a violent crime as this and where this information came from because I do not know how credible the information is. However, if we assume this to be true, it only exemplifies my view that handguns are not necessary. They are dangerous, and in the wrong hands they can cause disasters (1). Otis McDonald claims that having a handgun is the only way to protect himself (1). I believe someone should not be shooting to kill if they are only being robbed as he claims has happened to him. However, he later says he has a long gun, but it is inconvenient for him to use. Airport security procedures are very inconvenient for everyone, but they are accepted because it provides a greater sense of security when flying. I think having a gun to protect yourself also provides this sense of security, but we do not need to increase the risk of disaster by allowing handguns, especially in the homes of small children.
The point was also brought up that the government must have some regulation over this amendment or people would be able to own machine guns and bazookas (1). There are a lot of dumb people in America, and a lot of people I would not want to have the ability to own a gun, let alone a bazooka. Also, the article talks about the inability to bring a gun in many buildings in Washington D.C. (1). I understand why this would frustrate some people because it is limiting their Second Amendment rights, but the reality is all of our Amendment rights are limited in some way, and this is a way to protect society. I have always thought the Second Amendment was the right to bear arms in the matter to protect yourself, and if no one is allowed to bring guns into these federal buildings, what are you going to need to protect yourself from? Many people disagree with the representatives in Congress and some would go to extreme measures to try to kill them. I do not think we should make this task any easier for them by allowing guns in the houses of Congress as well as any of the other federal buildings that prohibit them. I think this is a very difficult amendment to interpret, but I do believe the government needs to have regulation over what is acceptable to bear arms and what is not, and it should be implemented across the country including all the states.
Sources:
1. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
I believe that the 2nd Amendment should be incorporated. However, I do not think that this particular law is unconstitutional and this case shouldn’t be the case to incorporate it. Chicago law still permits long guns and other forms of fire arms in order to appease the NRA and other opponents of gun control (3). But, I do believe there is a government interest in banning hand guns. “Chicago's attorneys say the city allows individuals to have long guns in their homes, but not handguns because they are easily stolen and used by criminals, or fired accidentally (sometimes even by children) or on purpose in domestic violence situations. The city notes that 87 percent of violent crimes are committed with handguns, and it argues that especially in densely populated areas, handguns are far more of a danger than a defense. (3)” These statistics are definitely compelling governmental interest. In some court cases the state used kind of wimpy excuses to demonstrate government interest. In Texas v Johnson, for example, the state cited public unrest when there was no evidence that any disturbance of the peace would ever occur. Yet, in this case there is documented evidence that handguns are particularly dangerous. I understand that if the Court decides to follow precedence they will rule this case in support of gun rights, but I wish they wouldn’t. This isn’t the best case to do it.
I do believe that citizens should have the right to bear arms. However, just like the freedoms of assembly or speech there has to some ways of controlling this right. The government can’t deny a group a march permit without major compelling government interest, but the citizens still need to obtain a permit in order to keep order (1). This principle should also apply to the right to bear arms. Yes, people can own guns but the government has a compelling interest to keeps tabs on the guns, as well as limit the types of guns purchased (1). If a specific gun, like an automatic machine gun or the handgun, is obviously very dangerous and there is historic record and data to back it up, the sale of said weapons should be illegal (2). We still have rights that the government should respect, but it is important that the rights of one individual don’t interfere with the safety of another.
(1)http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
(2)http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/police/about/gun-permits.asp
(3)http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
In the upcoming Supreme Court case: McDonald V. Chicago, brings up the question of whether or not the Second Amendment should be applied to state and local laws (1). Personally I think that the Second Amendment should not be incorporated or applied to the states. By doing this, it will only open the doors to an increase in gun-related deaths, as well as crime rate. It has been found that homicide rates are related to firearm ownership levels (2). With the Second Amendment being incorporated, the U.S. will be bound to see an increase in crime and gun-related death rates. This would open the opportunity for everyone possess firearms, as Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley said, “If you want to make a society by guns, then you arm everyone, and you do away with the police, and… you have chaos” (1).
The United States is already the leader when it comes to gun-related deaths. Within a group of 36 countries, of the 88,649 gun deaths reported, the United States accounted for 45 percent of the deaths alone (3). The study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia (3). And all of these deaths are accounted for before any talk of incorporating the Second Amendment to state law. Therefore, if the Second Amendment becomes incorporated to the states, the U.S.’ lead in gun-related deaths will only increase.
Although I understand Mr. McDonald’s want to feel safe and protected within his own home, I feel that there are other precautions that he could take, other than purchasing a gun. He could change the locks to his house, or purchase a home security system. Both of these methods are ways to prevent future break-ins and allow Mr. McDonald to feel safe without the need of a firearm.
Work Cited:
1. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
2. http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
3. http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html
I hate guns. I have never seen a real gun in person, I have never gone hunting, I have never held a gun and personally I plan on never doing any of these things throughout my whole entire life. I do not think guns are needed except in cases of federal safety and law enforcement officers and those guns would solely be for protection of themselves against criminals and for the general protection of society.
I think that the incorporation of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is a stupid idea and would be disastrous to any hope of controlling guns in the United States as well as keeping crime and murder rates down. When you extend an amendment it is very difficult to put provisions on how it is extended and you pretty much just have to fully give over the right. This means that by extending the Second Amendment, you are just giving a gun to a crazy person on a nice and shiny platter. It is hard to prevent people from getting guns if it is a right they receive and personally I would not want someone who is hearing voices in their head to be allowed to get a gun. I am not saying that there is a large majority of people who should not be allowed guns because there are plenty of competent people in the United States but I would rather infringe upon their rights than extending chances for future danger.
Another reason I do not believe the Second Amendment should be incorporated is that it is outdated and doesn’t even belong in what rights the federal government has to give us much less the states. The Second Amendment states, “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.” (1) Hello Justices of the Supreme Court, we have a military that is very separated from the public. At the time this amendment was written, we did not have a very strong military and the need to protect our country from others, such as the British, was left to some ordinary citizens. However, today if there is a threat against our country it is normally on a much larger scale and if we are being threatened there may be a nuclear weapon or something and then our country has much larger problems than whether or not someone can have a gun…it is left to whether that part of our country will survive. Essentially this amendment was created as a national security protection device and that is no longer needed.
While I am not talking specifically the type of people allowed to own guns, deaths are a major issue with the mortality rates in the United States. It is the second leading cause of death of people in the age group 15-24. As well, there were 30,316 Americans that died in 2003 alone from guns. The majority of these deaths were suicide, then homicide, followed finally with 730 unintentional deaths. (2) The number of people that were affected by those unintentional deaths in the United States is probably a huge number of people, and it is sad to say that 730 people in one year had to lose their lives because of the lacking controls on guns and the abilities to own one. As well, the leading cause of suicides is killing by gun. (3) If there were not guns for suicidal people to use, their method of killing would be less effective and therefore more lives would be saved each year by large amounts.
I do recognize that as far as the Constitution goes, as of now the Supreme Court does need to allow this amendment to be incorporated, but I think that in the next few months they should consider adding another amendment that would cancel out what the Second Amendment says and generally guns laws and rights in the United States should start from scratch.
I believe that in order for people to have a gun they should need to go through a series of gun safety courses, have a mental evaluation or some other doctor written form allowing them to own a rifle as well as a test and retests of their knowledge on gun safety. They should be required to keep it in a lockbox and only take it out of there when in use. In general I think this use should only be for hunting purposes and the gun should only be able to fire once or twice before being reloaded. While I would like to say that no one should be able to have a gun or just law enforcement officers should, I know that is never a possibility but I do think the United States needs to take the power of guns more seriously.
The reasons I give for these restrictions are the following: people think taking classes or having some type of doctor certificate to be allowed to have a gun is an invasion of privacy and it might be that. I believe that owning a gun should be treated like being able to drive a car you need to know all the safety, how to work it and be tested. Both of these objects are on the top lists of deaths in the United States and need to be treated similarly. You would not want someone who is color blind driving through stoplights or someone who cannot reach the pedals attempting to suddenly break. I would not want someone who is revenge seeking, mentally incompetent or convicted of crimes to be able to own a firearm. The lockbox rule is for the safety of the families of those who own guns. I have heard horrible stories of children getting their hands on a gun and firing at themselves or at other children without even knowing what they are doing and I would like to prevent that. Finally, the single or double fire rule – in many school shootings or in mass murders in general, they murderer typically uses a gun that can fire up to thirty times in a row leaving the maximum number of people killed or wounded. If that maximum number was brought down to just one or two before the killer needed to reload, we would be much safer and people who are shooting at others could be stopped much more quickly. I believe if the Supreme Court changed their gun rules when incorporating the Second Amendment or completely changed their gun rules, the United States would be much better off.
1. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004104727_gaillard03.html
2. http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/phil.html
3. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/288598-overview
This comment has been removed by the author.
One of the most controversial issues throughout American government has been the issue over the 2nd amendment. Although the 14th amendment extended some of the bill of rights to the states through the incorporation doctrine, the case of McDonald v. Chicago is now bringing up the question, should the 2nd amendment be incorporated too? [3]. The questions in the case are: is the 2nd amendment a basic civil right? [1]. Do strict gun control laws violate the constitutional “right to bear arms”? [3]. And can an individuals right to own a weapon extend beyond federal jurisdiction? [3]. The court must decide if the amendment was originally intended for the purpose of raising and maintaining a militia or if it was supposed to extend to the individuals right to carry a handgun at all times [2]. Looking back at the supreme court’s decision in 2008 lifting the gun laws in Washington D.C., it looks like the Chicago case could go much in the same direction [2].
I personally think that people should have the right to own a gun and keep it in their own home. In this particular case the defendant was asking specifically for a handgun that he could keep, while the law specifically allowed for him to keep a shotgun within his home [3]. I think that this is splitting hairs. Although I understand the reasoning for him wanting a handgun, I think that the law is lenient enough to allow him to keep a shotgun in his home. Crime rates in Chicago are high, especially when it comes to gun violence [3]. I think that it was reasonable for Chicago to just allow a shotgun in the home, and not a handgun. If McDonald really thinks that his handgun with “intimidate the drug dealers” I think that is the exact wrong way to think [3]. Violence and guns in my opinion only breeds more violence. Restrictions that are put there for the welfare of the community and safety of its citizens should be allowable. I think that intent of this amendment was purely for defense purposes since at that time there was no formal way to raise an army. I think that when deciding this case the court should consider what the original intent of the amendment was. It wasn’t so that every individual could take the law into their own hands using guns as intimidation. I think that court should also think about all the potential cases they are going to have should they side with McDonald. There are plenty of laws that will be protested and overturned witch could potentially cause social chaos.
[1]. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
[2]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/05/AR2010030502873.html
[3]. http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/01/supreme.court.gun.control/index.html?iref=allsearchhttp://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/01/supreme.court.gun.control/index.html?iref=allsearch
It is no great secret that I am a liberal. Typically, liberals oppose extensive individual gun rights. It is also true that I am a great believer in the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU also opposes extensive individual gun rights [1]. But in this specific case, McDonald v. Chicago, I think I am forced to disagree with the liberals and the ACLU under the same principles that led the ACLU to defend folks like the Nazis. The ACLU was never pro-Nazi, but they defended their rights just the same. I’m not pro-gun (I like to think I’m anti-gun, actually), but I don’t see how I can justify to myself the picking and choosing of amendments. To me, the founders were rather clear in their language, and I don’t think there is much room for interpretation. I say we incorporate the Second Amendment. Then, once we see a dramatic increase in gun violence, we would be able to go on with a clear conscience to pass another amendment limiting the Second. But I don’t like the hypocrisy of treating one piece of the Bill Of Rights different than the others.
[1] http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home