The right to keep and bear arms for individuals who are citizens of the United States of America was guaranteed to them by the Constitution.; The government is now at a unique point, through the media coverage of violent crimes and the occurrence of children gaining access to these deadly weapons, to either continue to uphold the constitutional right of the citizens or to place a ban that would be widely supported by the residents of the United States. According to researchers at the Cato Institution, “Congress now has a historic opportunity, not simply to stave off new gun-control proposals, but to begin restoring Americans’ right to keep and bear arms” (Gun control, 2014). Unfortunately, based on the information that has been provided by the media and the irresponsible manner in which many citizens have handled the right to bear arms, the United States government is being looked to for some form of solution that will both protect the constitutional rights while also protecting the innocent from violent crimes that are committed with the use of the same guns that are protected by the constitution.
Several different proposals have came across the desks of the state and federal administrators, yet none have been conclusive enough to satisfy the constitutional right and the right to safety in the eyes of the citizens. These proposals are often on the opposite side of the spectrum and do not find a way to meet in the middle in order to achieve the necessary votes to pass as a federal law. Two of these proposal were of a great mindset but failed to meet the necessary criteria. However, the ideas behind the writing of these proposals are worth looking into with greater detail.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Gun Control In California".
The state of California, placed a ban on the .50-caliber BMG, which notably has never been used in a crime. The state placed the ban because it was used in sport and could potentially fall into the wrong hands and be used in a crime. The government did not remove the guns from individuals who had already purchased them, but did require registration and that further sales be ceased (Gun control policies. 2007). With this extreme measure, the safety of potential future victims of gun crimes with this particular gun was being ensured, but that was the only right that was being protected. The right to bear arms, as stated in the Constitution, is not limited by caliber or fear. Therefore, this policy did not meet the criteria that is necessary to protect the citizens and the rights of those citizens.
The individual city of San Francisco has proposed the elimination of all handguns in an attempt to remove the potential for violent crimes involving these weapons. According to the article, “The law would prohibit all residents from keeping handguns in their homes or businesses and bar the sale, manufacture and distribution of any firearms or ammunition of any kind in San Francisco”(Gun control policies. 2007). This attempt has been made repeatedly without proper reception by the public.
Although the concept of removing individual weapons seems less invasive to the constitutional rights, it does little to protect the citizens. The all-inclusive ban violates every aspect of the Constitutional right. The concepts behind these policies show the understanding that something has to be done. However, legally removing the guns from law abiding citizens will violate the Constitution and not provide protection. The criminals who commit violent crimes do not adhere to the laws. Therefore the focus should be on these individuals instead.
- Gun control. (2014). Cato Institute. [Data set]. Retrieved from http://www.cato.org
- Gun control policies. (2007). [Data set]. Retrieved from http://guncontrolpolicy.com/
