Emmanuela DeSanges-Sobia
The Nature of Decision Making
The lack of restrictive access to private citizens purchasing guns used in massacres on civilians in American communities has brought light to the disparity between the existing access the general public has to guns and the original reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment.
The 14th Amendment’s loopholes has issued unrestricted concerns for private individual access to gun ownership. The Bill of Rights II Amendment in 1791 “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of every state, the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It was initially applied to the Federal Government. However, most recently it has been interpreted to grant the right of gun ownership to individuals for purposes that include self-defense. The actual condition of the United States Government- Recent Supreme Court Law evaluating Gun Law restrictions-
The premier source of my analysis is an Amendment Review by Cornell School of law scholars.
Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionality of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.
Recent case law suggests that courts are willing to, for example, uphold regulations which ban weapons on government property. US v Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009) (upholding defendant’s conviction for bringing a handgun onto post office property); regulations which ban the illegal possession of a handgun as a juvenile, convicted felon. US v Rene, 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (holding that the Juvenile Delinquency Act ban of juvenile possession of handguns did not violate the Second Amendment); regulations which require a permit to carry concealed weapons. Kachalsky v County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2nd Cir. 2012) (holding that a New York law preventing individuals from obtaining a license to possess a concealed firearm in public for general purposes unless the individual showed proper cause did not violate the Second Amendment.) (Cornell University School of Law).
Let us start with what has happened over the past 48 hours. Perpetrator orders an assault rifle from a high-end NRA magazine without restriction. despite zealous religious beliefs, he was still able to access a weapon to kill and injure citizens. These horrific incidents question who is behind allowing these civil acts of terrorism. Is this acceptable? Congress needs to address these concerns, as they are representing the democratic republic. A republic which is suffering due to ineffective gun regulations and policies. Closing in on what the significant concerns are and who is paying the price for ineffective gun laws- Children and parents at places of worship, supermarkets, school, at movie theaters, mall, people at parties.
The American Government should apply effective gun control laws which are above and beyond other countries. Here is where we are globally in terms of gun violence.
The pressures for legislators to put in place mandatory background check procedures need to come to fruition. The effective objectives-
⦁ Federal Government needs to issue strict policies on who can sell guns with federal license. This will reduce dealers as opposed to collectors and will subject both parties to conduct background checks and process applicants thoroughly before issuing a license for guns.
- ⦁ Federal Bureau should continue expanding their manpower to train and hire personnel who are specifically trained to process background checks,
- implement technologies that require persons who own guns to use their fingerprints when a gun is in use.
⦁ Applicants to obtain guns cannot via corporations, entities or inherit them via trust.
⦁ The Department of Health and Human Services need to address regulations/policies for the FBI to assess applicants who have extensive manic or whatever violent criminal history.
- Or subjective mental health issues to prevent them from getting access to guns- its a safety concern.
⦁ Administration to put in place stricter regulations for reporting lost and stolen firearms.
| Expected Consequences | Positives Less civil gun violence Stricter gun regulations Safer country Reframing regulatory standards pertaining to gun co | Negatives NRA feeling lost of money. More Government over-sight Extremist testing Security of country |
| Gains and Losses for others | Safer Neighborhoods Thorough Background checks | Stricter Criminal Penalties Fewer Licenses issued NRA losses money |
| Self-Approval | This will allow many to be less fearful returning to work in the field. Sense of security, cleaning up neighborhoods | N/A |
| Social Approval | Approval of families, communities in United States who have been affected by gun violence. Tourism boost for country’s economy Only those qualified through extensive FBI receive licensure to sell and own. | NRA losing money Illegitimate gun sales off the internet Mental Health Assessments prevention for gun licensure. Accountability via expensive cost for lost stolen guns, firearms |
Resources:
Holzer, M. & Schwester, R.W., (March, 2011). Public Administration; An Introduction. M.E. Sharpe. ISBN: 978-0-7656-2120-7 ( pgs. 138-145)
Watch President Obama announce gun control initiatives at White House
desfosterhope.com 
Leave a Reply