Gun Control and The Constitution

            The founding fathers unknowingly would cause future controversy after the 1791 passage of the Bill of Rights which ensured prevention against abuses of the national government upon civilian rights. One major source of controversy that still is debated and legislated upon in today’s society is the Second Amendment. This amendment to the 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 interpretation of the cited clause remains as one of the most heated and lingering debates in our American society.

            The article presented within Larry J. Siegel’s Introduction To Criminal Justice presents a narrow and construed segment of the topic of gun control by primarily referring to hand gun regulation. The case for gun control is set out by outlining the Virginia Tech tragedy of 2007, and mentioned that due to lax gun laws, the day resulted in the ruthless slaughter of 32 innocent victims.  The article then raises the question as to whether the Second Amendment truly protects the right to bear arms or not. The court case of United States v. Miller (1939) effectively stated that the only purpose where carrying or owning a military-styled gun is legal is for acting within militias.  This ruling left a gaping hole in legislation regarding handguns though. The recent case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)which decided that the Second Amendment protects the individual’s right to possess weapons for means of self defense, not just that of militia actions. In turn this also meant that no municipality within the United States of America can outlaw gun ownership.

              The article continues to outline several federal policies which are concerned with handgun regulation. The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act 1993 regulate the processes of gun ownership transfer and who is permitted to own a firearm. Other state laws have furthered federal regulations, but the question of how far should handguns be restricted arises.

              The ethical debate behind handguns rests with the question of whether the sale and possession of handguns should be closely controlled and restricted. Of course deadly weapons, especially firearms, should be controlled, but the extent to which they are regulated should be monitored. It seems only plausible to eradicate the possibility of the unstable, deranged, or criminal populace from ever being capable of possessing a firearm, as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act amendment did. However if the guns are over controlled, various situations can arise where those who should be enfranchised are put at disadvantages.