The gun control debate in the United Stated is decades, if not centuries, old. This is why this issue was deemed important enough to be included in the Second Amendment of the United States’ constitution. Currently, the debate has been heightened by a series of events that have occurred in the country in recent times.
The movie theatre shootings in Aurora and the more recent school shootings are examples of events that have contributed to the increased gun-control debate. This debate is the subject of a recent opinion piece appearing in the Wall Street Journal. The article appears in the February issue and it is jointly authored by Rivkin and Grossman. In the article, the authors contribute to the debate on gun control from a constitutional standpoint.
According to the authors, the current president seems uncomfortable around guns. This issue was recently spoofed in a fabricated photo that portrayed President Obama being shot by Skeet in the State House. Other than a president who is against guns, the authors note that this debate has only two major groups on opposing sides.
There are those who feel that guns are necessary as tools of self-defense against criminals or political uprisings. The opposing group considers this view as “archaic and subversive”. However, this article dismisses these two groups and focuses on what the country’s constitution states about this issue.
According to Rivkin and Grossman, the constitution clearly gives American citizens the right “to keep and bear arms”. A right that was cemented in a 2008 ruling by the Supreme Court in the matter of Heller v. District of Columbia (Rivkin and Grossman 3).
The main argument in this article is that the government cannot deny citizens their constitutional right and continue to justify itself using weak and selfish arguments. This paper agrees with Rivkin and Grossman’s argument that there is no justifiable argument that warrants gun control.
The reason why the gun control debate has increased is because its proponents seem to have State House backing. Recent utterances by the president indicate that he is in support of gun control. It is not clear whether the president views gun control as a viable solution or like many other gun-control proponents he is just uncomfortable around guns. Recent tragedies involving guns are also acting as another source of fuel for this debate.
Last year in July, a gunman entered a fully packed movie theater in Aurora, Colorado with a gun and shot indiscriminately at the crowd. In the process, 12 Americans lost their lives and 58 more suffered gunshot related injuries. Before that, there was the Tucson mass shooting in which six people were killed and fourteen more wounded.
This year, a teenager entered a classroom with a gun and shot indiscriminately at teachers and school going children in one of the bloodiest mass shootings witnessed in the country. While all these events need to be addressed, gun control is not the answer. The authors maintain that these are just unfortunate events that do not warrant an alteration of the constitution.
In addition, acting now is tantamount to making a “symbolic” change because there is need to for “something to be done” (Rivkin and Grossman 2). Indeed something has to be done, but changing legislations seems like overkill. What is worrying is that no alternative solutions are offered. The government should present at least two or three viable solutions to the mass-shooting problem.
Previous rulings by the highest court in the land have been in favor of the opponents of gun control. In a 2008 case, the Supreme Court ruled that there were no other “interpretations” to the Second Amendment (Krouse 24). The judges upheld that the constitution states that “the right of the people to bear and keep arms shall not be infringed”. Shortly after this ruling, another case pitting McDonald v. Chicago was presented before the Supreme Court.
This case sought to seek clarification on whether the Second Amendment applies to individual states. The court ruled that no state has the jurisdiction to deny an individual the right to bear arms. These rulings among others indicate that the matter of constitutional interpretation in relation to gun control is clear. The constitution means what it says, American citizens have the right to bear and keep arms.
Politicians on the other hand have no say in the matter of the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights makes it impossible for politicians to carry out self-interests in the issue of gun control. The authors of the constitution foresaw the importance of the citizens’ right to own guns and therefore ensured it was secure from groups and politicians with self-interest on the matter. As the Supreme Court has upheld time and again, gun control is not an issue that favors the rights of the minority.
In addition, the Second Amendment is not ambiguous as many gun control proponents argue. The constitution is clear on the issues of gun control. Therefore, there is no room for gun control as far as the constitution is concerned. Those advocating for gun control should look for other avenues to further their agenda other than the constitution.
According to Rivkin and Grossman, any changes to the constitution should not be influenced by emotions and mass hysteria. The current debate on gun control seems to fall under the category of mass hysteria. This is because almost all those proposing for gun control seem to refer to the recent increase in mass shootings.
The reason for doing this is to try to appeal to the current mass hysteria. Currently, there are government advisories directing citizens to be on the lookout for mass shooters. In addition, some schools have enforced stringent weapon screening measures to control weapon entry in schools. All these are signs of a society that is in panic mode.
Therefore, the president and other stakeholders should not be quick to amend the constitution on account of this “panic”. The authors claim that there should be a “legitimate interest” before any legislation is changed or made (Rivkin and Grossman 3). There is no need to interfere with a constitutionally granted right in an effort to make a symbolic gesture that is meant to calm the citizens down.
The constitution provides that any changes to the legislation be accompanied by a legitimate interest and the resulting alteration should be as little as possible. An example of this stipulation is a recent decision by the Supreme Court to delegitimize a federal ban that prohibited depictions of animal cruelty.
In the ruling, the court found that the ban interfered with free speech. This ruling indicates that the rights of the individual are always a priority over the rights of the government. The same argument can be applied to the debate against gun control.
The article argues that all the proposed modes of gun control are unsatisfactory. For instance, several states are proposing gun insurance. This insurance is supposed to cover for any damages that an individual’s gun may execute just like in vehicle insurance. This move is not likely to benefit the public in any major way.
This is because this insurance is only supposed to cover accidents and not intentional crimes. The move is just an effort to make it difficult for citizens to own guns. Moreover, some states are proposing a high tax on bullets. These excessive taxes are supposed to limit the use of guns. All these measures are just a clever way of circumventing the Second Amendment.
However, the courts are likely to fault these proposals on the grounds that they interference with the Second Amendment. The regulatory stance of these proposals is similar to regulating free press by making newspapers very expensive. When the government increases the price of bullets, it is the same as increasing the price of ink just to limit newspaper circulation.
The president also has made a proposal to ban guns that can be categorized as “assault weapons”. The weapons that fall under this category bear different features such as enhanced grips or threaded barrels. While these guns seem super-dangerous, their mechanisms are almost similar to those of other weapons.
For instance, the guns may look different but they still have the same magazine sizes and firing mechanisms that ordinary guns have. In cases of gun misuse, both “assault” and ordinary guns are equally dangerous. Therefore, banning particular types of weapons does not guarantee public safety in any way. In some instances, gun controllers might ban some types of guns based on their personal preferences.
The authors note that some aspects of gun control are permissible. According to the article, checks and balances to ensure that gun ownership is not abused are necessary. For example, there should be strict background checks before citizens are allowed to own guns.
However, the government still has no right to curtail the freedom of law-abiding citizens to own guns. In addition, the government should restrain from enforcing measures that infringe on this right indirectly. Some of these measures include imposing registration fees, taxes, and insensible waiting periods for gun ownership.
The authors of this article add their opinions to a debate that has dominated the airwaves for the most part of this year. The arguments forwarded by the authors are quite solid. The authors point out the contribution of the current president in the debate against gun control. The article argues that the president’s contribution is ill advised and propelled by mass hysteria. The authors lean on the constitution when they are giving their opinion.
Rivkin and Grossman are both law practitioners in Washington and they see the necessity to consult the constitution in the ongoing debate against gun control. Their argument dwells on the probability of undermining the Second Amendment or the Bill of Rights by enacting gun control measures.
According to the article’s argument, all the proposed gun control measures interfere with the Second Amendment in one way or another. The authors are of the view that the existing gun control measures are enough to combat any crisis. The need to exempt passion and emotions from the gun control debate is also emphasized by this argument.
Works Cited
Krouse, William. “Gun Control Legislation”. Congressional Research Service 7.57(2012). 1-118. Print.
Rivkin, David and Andrew Grossman. “Gun Control and the Constitution”. The Wall Street Journal 2.4(2013): 2-5. Print.