Gun Control Laws: Why they Should be Abolished

There is an extensive debate in the United States, on whether to allow gun control laws to thrive in the country. The Democrats and the Republicans have taken a different stances on the issue, with the Republicans advocating against the introduction of these laws. For instance, it is the belief of the Republicans, that introducing gun control laws is a violation of the American constitution. The 2^nd Amendment of the constitution gives the citizens the right to bear arms, and self-defence. Those against gun control laws usually cite the United States v Miller (1939) judicial precedent, where the Supreme Court denoted that the 2^nd Amendment should be interpreted in alignment with the establishment of a well-controlled militia, and not ownership of guns by individuals (Merino, 2018). The Democrats believe in the need to regulate gun ownership, and thus, introduce gun safety legislation, as it would enhance the safety of the state. But, this is a paper that has a position in support of the abolishment of gun control laws. The position of this paper is that gun control laws should be abolished because it is a violation of the 2^nd amendment rights established in the constitution, does not deter crime, and gives too much power to the state institutions, and this may lead to the ability of the state to take away guns from its citizens.

Gun Control Laws Violate the Constitution

The second amendment is a constitutional provision that allows American citizens to own and bear arms. This is a provision that is expressly stated in the American constitution, and the reason for it is to allow American citizens the right to self-defence. Furthermore, the 2^nd amendment advocates for the existence of an armed and well-regulated militia (Ghiani, Hawkins, & Baum, 2019). In this regard, the framers of the constitution were against any idea that would result in the introduction of laws and regulations that will lead to gun control laws, but they advocated for the need for the citizens to be well-armed so that they can assist the government to defend against a foreign invader, domestic tyrant, or criminals who are out to destroy their lives. In District of Columbia v Heller (2008), the US Supreme Court denoted that the 2^nd Amendment is a constitutional provision that guarantees the rights of an individual to bear arms, and for self-defence. Thus, it allowed citizens to own assault weapons such as hand-guns (Whitehead, Schnabel,  & Perry, 2018). The law under consideration was the D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), which prohibited the registration of some specific firearms, and an example is the sawed short-guns, and D.C. 22–4504(a), which prohibited individuals from carrying such guns in the public. In a majority ruling, the Supreme Court denoted that such gun control laws were a violation of the constitution, and ought to be scrapped.

Gun Control Laws do not Deter Crime

Maryland is one of the states that has a strict gun control law. For instance, the Firearms Safety Act of 2013 bans the possession of certain weapons, and this includes pistols by individual citizens (Lewis, 2018). Additionally, the GAM Public Safety section 5 (12) establishes the need for strict regulation of whoever owns a gun. Despite the presence of these laws in Maryland, it has not seen a decline in gun-related violence and homicide rates.  For instance, in 2019, Baltimore experienced a record of 348 homicides, this is one of the highest in the history of the city (Nestadt et al., 2020). Of this number, 80% of the deaths emerged because of gun-related activities. Furthermore, data from Maryland indicates that the firearms homicide rates increased by 31% from 2010 to 2019. On a conclusive approach, data indicates that about 700 people died through gun-related violence in 2019, this was an increase of 62% (EFGSV.gov, 2021).  From these statistical values, it is evident that gun control laws do not deter crime. The reason is that despite the presence of strict gun laws in Maryland, firearm deaths and gun violence are still prevalent.

We can write
your paper for you

100% original

24/7 service

50+ subjects

Hire a Writer

Gives the Government too Much Powers to the Government and violates the Due Process Clause

Indeed, introducing gun control legislation is unacceptable, and the reason is that the government gets too many powers, which can result in the control of the people. This includes limiting their ability to protect themselves against intrusion (Ausman, & Faria, 2019). Besides, the government can use these laws as a pretext to remove guns from the hands of the people. Furthermore, the introduction of these laws violates the due process clause of the 14^th Amendment, and this was established in the MacDonald v City of Chicago. The due process clause ensures fairness and equity in the application of laws, aimed at protecting American citizens.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is unacceptable to introduce gun control policies in the United States. One of the reasons is that it is a violation of the 2^nd Amendment’s Right to bear arms and form a militia. The constitution allows people to own guns so that they can protect themselves against intrusion. The other reason is that gun control policies do not deter crime. Maryland has one of the strictest gun control policies, but, this has not prevented firearm related deaths and homicides to increase. Finally, these laws violate the due process clause of the constitution and give the government too many powers, which can be abused, resulting in the removal of guns from the hands of citizens.

Get a brand-new guide on essay writing

Everything you need to get A+ this semester!

Get it

By continuing, you agree to the Terms And conditions and Privacy policy

The download will start within seconds. Good luck!

Download