ay in hGun Control should not take away our Second Amendment Rights
As the mass shootings/gun-related crimes increase, so does the controversy over needing stricter gun laws that can restrict our Second Amendment rights. These crimes make the guns seem to be the criminal instead of the person committing the crime. While some people believe guns are bad, the truth is that the gun is not responsible for the crime. The criminal that had committed the crime has made guns look bad. The real issue with all of the proposed gun laws places unfair restrictions on law-abiding gun owners. These responsible gun owners have not been convicted of a gun or weapon-related incident or have been in prison. The new gun control laws make it extremely difficult for the responsible gun owners to either buy more guns or buy ammunition for their current guns. By making this process so strict, there appear to be limits on our Second Amendment rights in which they are trying to take it away from us. With the rise of new gun control laws, there is no guarantee that gun-related crimes will decrease. Gun control is necessary to prevent criminals from getting or owning weapons, but it should not cut into our Second Amendment rights.
The Second Amendment was created in 1791 by the U.S. Congress. Congress created this amendment to protect the right to bear arms. This amendment has created debates about gun control legislation and the right of individuals to buy, own and carry firearms. 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.” This quote states that we have the right, as we are the people of the United States, to keep and own firearms. Under this amendment, we have to loosely interpret it as we are not really using it to assemble militias. The Second Amendment strikes up gun control debates. These debates make it seem like the Second Amendment needs to be reworded as the wording is out of date and is not used how it was written. The talk is that the part about forming militias should be taken out as we have armed forces that protect the country.
Currently, California is experiencing a new wave of gun control laws that are extremely restrictive and seem to limit our Second Amendment rights. There have been many mass shootings that are encouraging the lawmakers to come up with new ways to imply stricter standards for California gun owners. This is to hopefully combat all of the gun-related crimes. As we have been seeing a larger amount of gun-related crimes such as the San Bernardino shooting, the Las Vegas shooting and the Parkland shooting, the belief is that stronger gun control laws will hopefully prevent these tragic incidents from occurring. As a result of passing Proposition 63 in California, gun owners will have a tougher time buying ammunition for their guns. “Beginning July 1, 2019, a background check will be required on every purchase of ammunition in California.” By requiring a gun owner to wait for a background check to come back, it starts to limit our Second Amendment right as it makes the gun useless for defense. This is because gun owners will have to wait a ten-day waiting period while the background check is completed. Most people have some ammunition available at all times. For those that own guns for protection, they view this as a crime of opportunity for the criminal. It’s a crime of opportunity for the criminal if the gun owner cannot defend themselves because they don’t have any ammunition left on hand. So what sounds better? Tell the criminal “Hey can you come back in about 11 days as I cannot defend myself against you since I am waiting the 10 days to get my replenishment ammunition”, or basically just let the criminal ransack your house and you don’t have a good weapon of defense for protection. This is what may occur when that proposition comes into effect. Any person that would be in this situation would have rather had replenishment ammunition that they were able to buy in one day as it creates a sense of security. When the person who created this law could possibly be in a situation like this, they would not like the law. This law was created to make people wait for ammunition if they plan on using it for a negative or criminal purpose. The hope is that the delay in time will give people enough time to think through their plan and realize that they should not go through with it. When truthfully, if a person has already planned a criminal act and is determined to go through with it, they will even if they have to wait ten more days. It gives a false sense of security to the public when in fact it will not protect or change anything.
The gun control laws in California are some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Currently, California requires you to pass a universal background check regardless if you buy a gun from a gun dealer or from a friend. This is smart as it allows guns to only be sold to people that are not felons. Under the gun laws, when you take the background check you must wait 10 days to see if you pass in order to pick up your firearm. Owning most assault weapons is not allowed and you are not able to buy and sell large ammunition magazines or 5.0 caliber rifles. Also, you are only allowed to buy one handgun per month. “It’s far from definitive as to whether strict state gun laws reduce gun violence, including mass shootings.” This quote is true because California has extremely strict gun laws, but gun crimes are still happening. If the strict gun laws would work as they were designed, the San Bernardino shooting may not have happened. Although even with the strict gun laws in place, it still occurred.
There are some positive things that gun control has created. Gun control has made it impossible for a felon to legally purchase a gun. This is a benefit to the ten-day waiting period and background check. If a felon tries to purchase a firearm and their record is discovered, they face strict repercussions. Felons in possession of a firearm also face repercussions. Some of the repercussions for a felon in posession of a firearm include “16 months, or two (2) or three (3) years in a county jail, and/or a maximum $10,000 fine.” These are just some of the penalties a felon could face. If a person is a legal immigrant or legal alien and is convicted of this crime, that person could face deportation. It shows how the laws are strict because that is a long time to be in jail for just having a firearm in possession. Also, once a person is convicted of a felony, especially one that is related to or involves a firearm, their right to own or possess a firearm is taken away and there is no way to get that right back.
Sometimes there are loopholes to gun control laws. The loopholes don’t really apply to the law-abiding citizens though. These loopholes are more geared towards those who shouldn’t own a gun. When you’re a felon, if you want a gun to commit some sort of crime you will obtain a gun by any means necessary. Whether it is stealing a gun from someone, getting a friend to buy a gun for you, or getting a burner gun and then disposing of it immediately after the crime. By doing that, you will not be in “legal” possession of the firearm, but there will be no proof that you were in possession of the gun in the laws eyes. This is the common occurrence in which felons can do repeat crimes with guns. “The justices let stand a lower court’s ruling that uniformly denying felons whose crimes were not serious the right to own guns violated the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, which protects the right to “keep and bear arms”.” This quote shows that felons that were charged with a non-violent crime are challenging the law in regard to keeping their Second Amendment right which allows them to keep a firearm. This proves that the people who are not perfect in the eyes of the law can still own a firearm. In my opinion, this seems to be ok depending on what the charges were against the individual. It shows that if there’s a will to get a firearm there’s going to be a way.
There is a need to have gun control that does not take away our Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment was created by Congress to make sure citizens’ right to own a firearm would not be taken away. Through the Second Amendment, the interpretation of how it’s contextually written does not seem to apply to us these days as forming a militia is not necessary. New proposed gun law changes can negatively impact our rights to own the firearm. As for those who live in California, we are getting impacted by unfair gun restrictions that make it seem like we shouldn’t be able to own firearms. The new gun law is making it very difficult to buy ammunition as you will need a background check to buy the ammunition. As a result of gun control laws, California is one of the strictest states in the nation in terms of gun control which doesn’t seem to work since gun crimes are still happening. These gun crimes can be done by a law-abiding individual or someone that’s a criminal. Regardless if you’re a criminal or a law-abiding citizen, it’s still a gun-related crime, in which the gun law failed to try and prevent through the strict policies. New gun control laws always sound like the easy way out when it comes down to preventing a gun-related crime, but they never work as they were intended.
ere…