Jump to content

Gun politics in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.93.102.41 (talk) at 09:41, 23 December 2005 (→External links). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Firearm legal topics of the
United States
flag United States portal

The political issues surrounding guns in the United States is an especially contentious topic in the United States. The degree to which firearms can or should be regulated has long been debated, and disagreements range from the practical —does gun ownership cause or prevent crime? —to the constitutional —how should one interpret the Second Amendment? —and the philosophical —which weapons, if any, does the government have the authority to control?

The Second Amendment

Main article: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 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.

The meaning of this text remains fiercely debated, with some saying that the amendment refers to only official entities, such as the Army or National Guard, while others say that the amendment always guarantees the right of independent individuals to own firearms. Gun control advocates argue that only members of a "well regulated militia" have the right to keep and bear arms, with debate ensuing over what, exactly 'the militia' is. Opponents of gun control argue that the phrase "the people" applies to all individuals rather than an organized collective. They also cite the fact that the Second Amendment resides in the bill of rights, and argue that the bill of rights by its very nature defines individual rights of the citizenry. Many people against gun control read the Second Amendment to say that because of the need of a formal military, the people have a right to "keep and bear arms" as protection from the government.

On the other hand, some gun control advocates argue for an outright repeal of the Second Amendment to promote gun control, rather than trying to interpret it to do so.

Practical Questions

Gun control advocates and opponents disagree on more practical questions as well. There is an ongoing debate over the role that guns play in crime. Gun-rights groups say that a well-armed citizenry prevents crime and that making civilian ownership of firearms illegal would increase the crime rate in a way similar to Prohibition, while gun control organizations claim that increased gun ownership leads to higher levels of crime, suicide, and other negative outcomes. Questions of regulatory policy include:

  • Types of firearm –Should some types of firearms be regulated differently than others?
  • Criteria of eligibility – Are there criteria that disqualify a person from owning firearms? (Possible criteria include age, mental competence, firearm training, and felony conviction)
  • Background checks – Should there be background checks made to verify eligibility to own a firearm? Who should make them, and should there be a waiting period before a firearm can be sold?
  • Registration – Should all firearms and firearm owners be registered? If so, how may the registration information be used, and who should have access to it?
  • Concealed weapons – Should carrying concealed weapons be regulated? If so, should concealed carry be regulated separately from ownership, and if so, how?
  • Enforcement –Can gun-control laws be feasibly enforced? Should executive policy be to strictly enforce gun laws?
  • Storing – Should there be any regulations on how guns are kept? Should the state mandate the dismantling, unloading or locking of guns in storage?

Advocates on both sides generally agree that the gun rights lobby is among the most effective and organized single-issue political groups in the United States. Yet the gun control/gun ban lobby has still managed to bring about the enaction of many gun control laws.

Self-defense

Both sides actively debate the relevance of self-defense in modern society. Some scholars, such as John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime, say they have discovered a positive correlation between gun control legislation and crimes in which criminals victimize law-abiding citizens. Lott asserts that criminals ignore gun control laws, and are effectively deterred by armed intended victims, just as higher penalties deter crime. Lott's work has been challenged by a number of scholars and some hold that concealed carry laws do not reduce crime. His work involved comparison and analysis from data collected from all the counties in the United States.

Also, Dr. Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida state University, did research regarding this topic. His results showed that possibly as many as 2.5 million people used their gun in self-defence or to prevent a crime a year, if not more. A further breakdown showed that as many as 1.9 million of those instances were involving a handgun. Kleck's research has been challenged by David Hemenway. Few people outside of the gun rights community take Kleck's numbers seriously. The number of defensive gun uses is hotly contested

The National Rifle Association regularly reprints locally published stories of ordinary citizens whose lives were saved by their guns. A sample can be seen here:[1].

Homicide rates as a whole, and especially homicides as a result of firearms use; are significantly lower in all other developed countries. This is especially apparent in the UK and Japan, which have very strict gun control. Statistics on mortality rates are available from the World Health Organisation WHO mortality Tables

Advocates of gun control, however, argue that because criminals obtain guns by stealing them from law-abiding gun owners, restricting their availability would decrease supply to criminals. They also argue that higher rates of gun ownership increase the number of crimes of passion. Non-defensive uses of guns, such as hunting, vermin control and recreational target shooting, often receive little attention despite arguably being the most common reasons for private gun ownership. This is perhaps because focusing on defense allows for the broadest coverage of firearms, and some say the most in tune with the intent of the Second Amendment. Of course, the notion that the Second Amendment concerns individual self defense and not collective self defense is itself a contentious issue.

The numbers of lives saved or lost by gun ownership are hotly debated. Problems include the difficulty of accounting accurately for confrontations in which no shots are fired, and jurisdictional differences in the definition of "crime". For example, some have argued that American statistics tend to over-count violent crimes, while British statistics tend to under-count them.

Proponents of gun control frequently argue that carrying a concealed pistol would be of no practical use for personal self-defense, while gun right advocates argue that individuals with proper firearm training are better able to defend themselves if carrying a handgun. Proponents of gun rights claim that in the US, there are up to 2.5 million incidents per year in which a lawfully-armed citizen averts being victimized by defending him or herself from a would-be attacker. Those who advance these statistics say that the deterrent effect would disproportionately benefit women, who are often targets of violent crime. The counter argument is that guns are more likely to be used against women in these situations. Few serious scholars on either side of this debate accept the 2.5 million number that gun rights advocates cite for defensive gun use.

Gun control advocates argue that high levels of gun ownership lead to higher levels of suicide and accidental deaths. Gun ownership advocates dispute these claims, saying that so few accidental deaths and suicides are gun-related that banning guns would have little impact on the overall statistics. They also argue that suicidal people would simply find other ways to end their lives.

Security against tyranny and invasion

Another position taken by gun rights advocates is that an armed citizenry is the population's last line of defense against tyranny by their own government, as many believe was one of the main intents of the Second Amendment. A popular saying is that the amendment is "the government's reset button". They note that many soldiers in the American Revolution were ordinary citizens using their privately owned firearms. Gun control advocates answer that it is unrealistic to suppose that private citizens could oppose a government which controls the full power of the US Armed Forces, were it to become tyrannical. Some gun control advocates also claim that the people's power to replace elected officials by voting is sufficient to keep the government in check. An example of citizens in desperate circumstances where all other democratic options have failed was the Battle of Athens in August 2, 1946.

As well, using the Second Amendment to legally defend what is, in essence, fighting against the government seems strange in light of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. This Article, besides establishing the very legal force of the Constitution and its Amendments to begin with, also empowers Congress to act through the State Militias to smash domestic insurrections.

Invasion by hostile outside forces is another reason gun rights advocates oppose registration. If captured, the associated records would provide invaders with a means of locating and eliminating law-abiding resistance fighters. Location and capture of such records is a standard doctrine taught to military intelligence officers. The risk of the capture of such records is recognized as legitimate; firearms dealers are asked to destroy their records if an invasion is underway. Registration aside, gun rights advocates claim that an armed citizenry is a strong deterrent against a foreign invasion. They frequently cite tyrants who claimed to fear invading countries where the citizenry was heavily armed, or that they needed to disarm their own populace to be effective. Gun control advocates dispute these ideas, arguing that the US's two neighbors, Mexico and Canada are unlikely to ever invade, and that conquering tyrants have often required firearms ownership among their civilian populations (and, needless to say, their militaries).

In the 2003 documentary Innocents Betrayed, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership advanced the claim that gun control laws have been a critical part of all genocides in the twentieth century. The documentary referred to laws restricting gun ownership to government officials passed in Nazi Germany, the USSR, and elsewhere. It is observed that in many cases, a leader with spirations of dictatorship will often ban guns from the area he wishes to control, thus preventing any uprising that could threaten his reign (examples include Hitler and Stalin, just to name a couple). The evidence for this claim has also been challenged by scholars who have pointed out that Nazi gun laws were less restrictive than those of the democratic Weimar government, and that the gun laws in Iraq under Saddam Hussein were extremely permissive. One might argue that guns in the hands of individuals have not produced a significant impact on preventing dictatorships. By contrast, guns in the hands of groups that fit a militia model have been quite effective against much larger and better organized forces.

Political battle

Originally formed in 1871, after the American Civil War, to promote marksmanship skills among the general population, the NRA was mainly a shooting-sports association that rose to prominence from its nationwide promotion of firearms safety, training courses and certifications it offered local shooting clubs and their members. It became a powerful lobbying force after the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which made gun control a national issue. Virtually all pro-gun-control groups see the NRA's positions as extremist, especially since Harlon Carter became the de facto policy maker at the NRA, bringing with him a more hard-line stance towards gun rights than the NRA held in the past.

In contrast, the other national gun rights groups generally take a much harder line than the NRA. These groups criticize the NRA's history of support for various gun control legislation such as the Gun Control Act of 1968, the ban on armor-piercing projectiles and the point-of-purchase background checks (NICS). The Second Amendment Sisters, Second Amendment Foundation, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, The Pink Pistols and Gun Owners of America are among the groups in this category.

While gun control is not strictly a partisan issue, there is more support for gun control in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. The only political party which completely supports gun rights is the United States Libertarian Party. Traditionally, regional differences are greater than partisan ones on this issue. Southern and Western states are predominantly pro-gun while coastal states like California, Massachusetts, and New York favor gun control. Other areas, including the Midwest, are mixed, and two, Vermont and Alaska, have absolutely no CCW (Carrying a Concealed Weapon) licensing requirements, gun registrations, or bans, and disallow local government pre-emption.

Notable individuals

The field of political research regarding firearms suffers from the same contention as the issue of firearms itself. Almost every prominent researcher has seen their works attacked by those uncomfortable with their conclusions, and some have had their work investigated as academic fraud. Nonetheless, some influential individuals include (in alphabetical order):

Michael Bellesiles - His work has been generally discredited. Charges of serious research misconduct have been endorsed by external review.
Clayton Cramer
Gary Kleck
Arthur Kellermann
John Lott - Much of his work is now questioned, but no external professional review has been done.
David Mustard
David Hemenway

Gun control laws

Fully automatic weapons have been restricted in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934. The only available automatic firearms to civilians are those manufactured before May 19, 1986. Private owners must obtain permission from both the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATF) and the county sheriff or chief of police, pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and finger prints, fully register the firearm, continually update the owner's address and location of the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a $200 transfer tax. This process takes approximately 6 months to complete. Additionaly, the firearm can never be handled or transported by any other private individual unless the firearm's registered owner is present. Some states require state permission as well, and some states prohibit any sort of possession under any terms. Otherwise, automatic firearms are available only to police or military personnel.

The Clinton administration BATF study of illegal firearms in the black market estimated that as many as 4 million illegal fully automatic firearms had either been illegally smuggled into the USA or illegally constructed within the USA. No new legal full-autos have been manufactured for the civilian population since 1986, causing the economic rules of supply and demand to drive the prices of existing automatic weapons well above the cost of manufacturing and distributing them, making it impractical for most Americans to afford a legal automatic firearm even if they do legally qualify for it.

In the U.S., the major federal gun control legislation is the 1968 Gun Control Act, passed shortly after the assassinations of Presidential candidate Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King. The act required that guns carry serial numbers and implemented a tracking system to determine the purchaser of a gun whose make, model, and serial number are known. It also prohibited gun ownership by convicted felons and certain other individuals. The Act was updated in the 1990s, mainly to add a mechanism for the criminal history of gun purchasers to be checked at the point of sale.

A patchwork of laws exists at state and local levels, with the state of Illinois, Washington, DC, and the city of New York having among the more restrictive limits; New York's Sullivan Act was passed in 1911. Many states implemented criminal background checks or "waiting periods" for handgun (pistol and revolver) purchasers in response to the gun control lobby in the 1980s. More recent lobbying efforts have resulted in the passage of laws making it a crime to leave guns in locations accessible to children. See also: Gun Control (in USA by state).

Concealed Carry, Licenses, and Open Carry

Recent changes in the political landscape have brought about legislative initiatives to make it legal for common citizens to carry concealed guns with them for defense. Most states have various requirements for training and licensing for concealed carry. The notable exception is Vermont, which has never had any such restrictions in its history. A handful of other states had liberalized concealed carry regulations, allowing almost all law-abiding adult citizens with appropriate training to obtain carry permits. The trend toward liberalizing concealed carry regulations, however, did not begin in earnest until 1987. In that year, Florida became the first major state to liberalize its concealed carry regulation. Many other states have followed, for a total of 37 states having such laws on the books as of April 2004. Notably, no state that has passed a shall-issue law has yet repealed it legislatively. However, Minnesota's shall-issue law was invalidated by a state appeals court in 2005 on grounds that the law was passed in violation of a provision in the state constitution that prohibited multi-issue legislation. The ruling was on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court but became moot in May of that year when a new standalone shall-issue bill, virtually identical to the invalidated legislation, was passed by the legislature and signed into law.

Like Vermont, Alaska has no requirement for a license or permit for any lawful gun owner to carry concealed handguns in public. However, unlike Vermont, Alaska has issued such permits to its residents in the past, and continues to issue new permits. There are three main reasons for this policy. First, several other states honor Alaska's permits, while no state (apart from Vermont and now Alaska) recognizes the concealed carry rights of non-residents without permits, even if carrying without a permit is allowed in the person's home state. Second, all concealed carry permits in the United States, as long as they require a criminal background check, make their holders exempt from most prosecutions under the much disputed federal Gun Free School Zones Act. Finally, Alaska's permit is one of a small number of state permits that meet the federal criteria to exempt their holders from federal background checks to purchase firearms.

A state's laws regarding open carry cannot generally be inferred from its laws regarding concealed carry. Some states, for instance Arizona and Virginia, allow unlicensed open carry of handguns. Others, for instance Utah and Georgia, allow open carry only with a license; their licenses allow both concealed and open carry. Still other states, for instance Texas and Florida, categorically forbid open carry of handguns, even though they allow licensed concealed carry.

A license to carry a concealed weapon is not necessarily a license to carry one anywhere. As an example, in Montana, even holders of concealed weapon licenses cannot carry firearms into banks, schools, Federal government buildings, or any establishment that sells alcoholic beverages.

The status of concealed carry laws in the USA has changed dramatically since 1986, as seen below:

  • 1986 - 8 shall-issue states, 20 may-issue, 21 no-issue, 1 unrestricted.
  • 2004 - 38 shall-issue states, 6 may-issue, 4 no-issue, 2 unrestricted.

Definitions:

  • Shall issue—Authorities are required to issue permits to all individuals who meet the state's issuance criteria. This category is also generally interpreted to include states where authorities have very limited discretion in permit issuance.
  • May issue—Authorities have broad discretion as to whether to issue a permit to a given individual. Some may-issue states are, for all practical purposes, no-issue. Other may-issue states have policies that vary radically from one political subdivision to another, and are considered by some a means for politicians and public officials to elicit campaign contributions and/or bribes. For example, at one time, suspected mafia members made up a significant fraction of the few people in New York City with CCW permits.
  • No-issue—Concealed carry is prohibited to the general public.
  • Unrestricted—No permit required for concealed carry.

See also

Organizations

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_politics_in_the_United_States&oldid=32467724"