Gun
Control in the USA
The
right to the ownership of a firearm is founded on the right to self-defense.
Individuals have a right to defend themselves from anyone who wishes to destroy
their lives. The right to self-defense is related to the right to life. It
sounds ridiculous to provide the right to life yet there are no means to
protect the life. The opponents of gun ownership have been against this right
to protect life from danger. The paper will look at the moral right to own a
gun and whether the Supreme Court judges make the law by offering an
interpretation on the application of the Constitution.
Moral Right to Own Guns
I hold a
belief that individuals have a moral right to the ownership of a gun. However,
the rights are logically before the laws that are enacted by the state.
Individuals have the right to take part in in any activity unless there is a
reason as to why they should not be allowed to do it (Huemer,
2017). The person denying the rights has the task of proving that there
is the reason for the existence of the right. Likewise, the person seeking to
have the right must proof that they are sufficiently fit to hold custody of a
gun.
Limits on the Type of Weaponry
Despite
the right, I find that there should be a limit to the type of weaponry that
people should be allowed to own. Individuals should not be allowed to hold
unusual weapons. The Second Amendment has been made clear by a Supreme Court
ruling on the type of weaponry that individuals should carry. The decision
barred American citizens from having unusual and dangerous weapons that are not
commonly used at that particular time. It can be interpreted to be a general
rule that governs the right to the ownership of arms. Individuals should hold
the weapons that are common to all.
Justification
The
type of firearm that an individual can own is subject to the regulation under
the National Firearms Act. It specifies the extra tax stamp and regulation to
own a firearm. Individuals seeking to have special weapons need to get
authorization by complying to the set restrictions and paying the relevant duties
and taxes. Individuals are allowed to own any non-automatic firearm that has a
maximum caliber of 0.5 (Findley, 2013). It should also have a barrel of 16
inches in length (Findley, 2013). Shotguns should have a barrel length
of 18 inches (Findley, 2013).
Individuals
should not be allowed to hold and possess machine guns and explosives. The
National Firearm Act gives an exclusive definition of the acceptable weapons
and firearms to the general population. The ownership of other weapons is
subject to massive authorization and oversight by the government. Individuals
are allowed to hold possession of tanks, fighter jets, and artillery. However,
they cannot have functional weapons in them without conforming to the National
Firearms Act. If an individual owns a tank, they have to make sure that its
main gun is disabled and cannot function.
The
regulations are meant to bar individuals from holding possession of dangerous
weapons such as atomic bombs and other explosives (Swanson, 2013).
Their possession of such weapons is subject to strict regulations making it
difficult for private ownership. Uranium enriched weapons are out of binding
for private citizens while the possession of explosives will require
authorization. It is to ensure that only the government owns extensively
dangerous weapons.
Interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme
Court
At
times, the Supreme Court is called upon to offer an interpretation to the
constitution. This does not mean that the judges are making the law. In most
situations, the judges apply and interpret the law. Most of them will object
that they make laws. They only serve to offer an interpretation of the law in
relation to the intention that the legislators intended it to serve. They
ensure that mischievous interpretations are not put to application
However,
in reality, the law is not an algorithm that will produce a flawless production
subject to the contributions given to it. Most cases require that the law gets
interpreted with a balance of interests and consideration of policies (Supreme Court, 2017). When all this is done, some law
may come by that was not applicable in the past. It decides a particular case
influential to some cases in the future or binding to similar suits.
Justification
The
Supreme Court does not convene to make or set new laws. Its task is to ensure
that it gives a verbal interpretation to the ambiguous words that are in the
statute. In some situations, the words seem to have different meanings. The
defendant in this situation may try to fit it in their context so that it
serves to their advantage. In such a situation, the judges interpret the law in
a manner that will bring out its intention and purpose. It provides a remedy
that suppresses the mischief realized.
During
the making of statutes, it is not possible to exhaust all the possibilities
where the statute may be applied. It is also not possible to ensure the
provision of terms that are free of ambiguity. Due to the lack of precise
application, the judge supplements the written words to give them force and
life that are in line with the intended purpose of the legislature. They do not
alter the written law but provide a clear understanding of it.
If
judges are let to make laws, there would be a great problem. It would imply
that they are performing similar functions as the legislative authority. It is
a violation of the division of powers that are stipulated in the constitution.
Another problem would arise since judges do not offer representation to the
public. Legislative members are elected by members of the public for a specific
term.
They pass laws
that are in line with the beliefs of the people they represent. Judges are
appointed under a professional contract. Allowing them to make laws would mean
that there would be many dissimilar laws that are not in line with the existing
constitution. Each of the judges would make laws that fit situation before
them. It would result in a lot of inconsistency in the laws.
Allowing
judges to make laws would be giving room for various explanations to the law.
The intended purpose of the law would be lost to the numerous explanations.
Different individuals would make them serve their situation creating a greater
confusion in the future. It would lead to the loss of constitutional purpose.
Contradicting clauses would have different meanings making it difficult to
understand when to apply a particular law. Therefore, judges should not be
allowed to make laws but rather offer an interpretation of the areas that need
clarification.
In
conclusion, it is a moral right to own a gun in the United States. However, the
ownership has to be subject to regulations that will ensure the ownership is
the right firearm. The restrictions aim at preventing citizens from owning
weaponry that is too dangerous for their safety and those allowed them. The
Supreme Court made a ruling on the ownership of weaponry. In its decision, it
did not seek to contravene the statute. The court did not make any new law. It
only gave an interpretation that was in line with the purpose of the
statute.
Findley, B. (2013). The Best Handgun Caliber for Your Concealed Carry Weapon? Retrieved from https://www.usacarry.com/best-handgun-caliber-concealed-carry-weapon/
Huemer, M. (2017). Is There a Right to Own
a Gun?. Owl232.net. Retrieved from http://owl232.net/guncontrol.htm
Supreme Court, (2017). Justices. Supremecourt.gov.
Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/justices.aspx
Swanson, J. (2013).
Mental illness and new gun law reforms: the promise and peril of crisis-driven
policy. Jama, 309(12), 1233-1234.
No comments:
Post a Comment