Gun Control

The United States gun control debate has been especially prevalent following an upward trend in devastating shootings. From the elementary school massacre in Newton, Connecticut to the recent office shooting in San Bernardino, gun violence has lead to thousands of deaths in the past decade. In fact, San Bernardino marked the 355^th mass shooting in the year 2015 (www.patch.com).

            To determine one’s stance on the gun control debate, one must weigh their opinion on the importance of keeping weapons out of the wrong hands, against the significance of the Second Amendment, “the right to bear arms”.  This personal right has been engrained in our society since it’s founding, so it as a more historical school of interpreting the law. However, when considering a mindset based on legal realism, we can also weigh the fact that we are living in a changing environment that may not parallel the conditions of centuries ago.

            Just yesterday, President Obama induced significant executive action on federal gun legislation. This order widens background checks, increases information required on mental illness, and tightens these checks at a federal level. Previously, 32 states had followed federal background check requirements, while 18 adopted state laws. Additionally, the action increases the number of FBI agents and invests $500 million to improve access to mental healthcare.

            While these actions appear to be plausible measures to combat increasing gun violence in America, they have sparked outrage among many politicians. Conservative lawmakers contend that this executive action completely over-extended the administration’s power, while also “violat[ing] the constitutional separation of powers in which the legislative branch enacts laws and the executive branch executes those laws” (Senator Jim Risch). The President avoided public debate and opposition by issuing the order on a topic that has been discussed extensively by the Congress, who have been unable to reach a consensus.

            Through federal preemption, the government has previously placed gun laws that can be made stricter by individual states. An essential question when examining the gun debateis: is it the responsibility of the federal government or state governments to decide regulations on firearms?  I view these mass shootings as a national issue, so I do concede that changes must be made on a federal level. Mentally ill persons who seek to obtain a gun for this purpose live in every state, so background checks must be increased universally. If states choose to further tighten their controls, then they should also be able to do so. Yet, after Obama’s action, certain predominately conservative states have retaliated by “pushing measures intended to expand access to firearms”. For instance, Indiana lawmakers are aiming to relax their restrictions on who can purchase a gun, despite record homicide rates. This backlash is partially a consequence of states’ frustration over the President’s “unfair” control of the agenda.

I do accept that laws must be enacted to reduce the increasing gun violence in America. Obama’s new laws appear to contain appropriate solutions to keep weapons out of the hands of those with criminal records and some of the mentally ill, who have often been found to cause a large proportion of shootings. However, the way by which Obama implemented the law was flawed. In order to preserve the fair legal processes that the country was founded on, presidents cannot overextend their power. The legislative branch of the government is intended to make decisions once the citizens of the country are ready to elect a Congress that is driven to achieve the public’s objectives. When this condition transpires, laws will be passed through the branch and then confirmed by the President. When examining both positions on Obama’s new gun laws, I also considered the action a breach on the checks and balances system, which is vital in order to maintain a fair system. Increasing power in the executive branch detracts from that of the Congress. If the citizens of the United States had elected a Congress that supported stricter gun control, then a similar law would have already been passed. The elected Congress represents the citizens of the country, and the fact that the President took control to pursue his objectives both diminishes the democratic nature of the Congress and violates the founding principles of the country.

Ultimately, action needed to be taken some way or another on this pressing issue. Perhaps the President wanted to invoke motion on the debate before leaving office this year. Whether or not he took the right approach is debatable. The nation should just beware of the expanding powers of the federal government and the executive branch. The right to bear arms is an individual freedom that has been protected on the Bill of Rights since the country’s founding, and its regulation is a matter that should be taken into serious consideration. The purpose of the amendment was to bestow citizens with a means of protection. However, in this day and age, are we actually better off infringing upon this fundamental right in order to keep weapons out of the wrong hands?