Gun control has been a much-debated topic since the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. In the Constitution it 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” (Murphy, p. 1656). Although we have a split opinion on whether or not guns should be regulated we can argue that gun regulation hasn’t had a steady increase or decline. Factors such as violence, lobbyist, and Constitutional rights have had both positive and negative impacts on gun regulation.
While mass shootings continue to increase, the fight for gun regulation has seen an increase as well. Definitions for mass shootings have changed within the past 10 years; according to the FBI a mass shooting was considered to be the murder of three to four people regardless of weapon being used (Ingraham). By the end of the 2015 calendar year, there were a total of 462 people killed in a mass shooting and 1,314 people injured (Myre). Within the topic of mass murder, the question that presents itself is whether or not guns being used to kill people are being bought legally or illegally.
Whatever the outcome may be for the legality of purchased guns used in violent acts, people will demand stricter gun regulations. If the purchased gun was bought legally then the argument would be “requirements for purchasing guns should be stricter in order to try and keep bad people from purchasing them. ” Had the gun been bought illegally the argument would be “we need to have tougher gun regulations in order to keep gun purchasing legal and strict. Over the past three decades it has been found that 82 percent of weapons involved in mass shootings were purchases legally (Chuck). On December 2, 2015 a shooting in San Bernardino, California occurred which took the lives of fourteen people (Buchanam). The culprits were Syed Rizwan Farook, and Tashfeen Malik who had legally purchased the guns used in the shooting (Buchanam). On October 1, 2015 Christopher Harper-Mercer went into a community college in Oregon and killed nine people with guns he had purchased legally through a federally licensed firearm dealer (Buchanam).
Dylan Roof stepped inside a historically black church in Charleston, South Caroline on June 17, 2015 and managed to kill nine people igniting a race war with his legally purchased gun (Buchanam). Dylan Roof should have been banned from purchasing a gun due to a crime related drug charge that was placed against him but the FBI examiner conducting the background check failed to obtain his police record (Buchanam). Aaron Alexis used a “Remington shotgun” on September 6, 2013 to murder twelve people at the Navy Yard in Washington D. C. (Buchanam).
The gun used by Aaron Alexis had been purchased legally (Buchanam). Aaron Alexis had received honorable discharge from the U. S. military for “patterns of misbehavior” and then sought treatment, twice, from the Department of Veterans Affairs for psychiatric issues (Buchanam). On September 2013 Aaron Alexis was stopped from buying a riffle at a local Virginia gun retailed but was allowed to buy a shotgun, passing local and state background checks (Buchanam). Wade M. Page went into a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin killing six people (Buchanam).
In the early 1990’s Wade Page was charged with criminal mischief, and in the early 2000’s he became known to police members due to his association with a white power band called “Apathy” (Buchanam). On July 2012 he passed a background check, purchased his semiautomatic handgun legally and paid cash (Buchanam). In Aurora, Colorado on the premier night of “Batman,” (July 20, 2012) James E. Holmes went into the movie theatre and managed to kill twelve people and injure seventy using a legally purchased “Smith & Wesson semiautomatic rifle, a Remington shotgun and a glock . 0-caliber semiautomatic pistol” (Los Angeles Staff). Within a four-month time period James Holmes managed to purchase more than 3,000 rounds of ammunition for handguns, 3,000 rounds for a semiautomatic rifle and 350 shells for a 12-gauge shotgun, all purchased through the Internet (Buchanam). Two months before the shooting James Holmes was seeing a psychiatrist but still managed to legally purchase four guns (Buchanam). According to Buchanam, even if James Holmes was seeing a psychiatrist for a serious mental illness he wouldn’t have been disqualified from buying a gun.
As we can see background checks, mental disabilities, and criminal records don’t stop people from legally purchasing guns. During President Barack Obama’s presidency, he’s had to give many speeches revolving mass shooting incidents, and of the eleven that prompted President Obama to give a public speech, eight of them were from gunmen who purchased their guns legally (Cauterruci). While a correlation between mass murderers and demands for gun regulation can be seen, not all violent murders cause people to ask for stricter gun laws. In Mississippi a new bill was signed into law: House Bill 786 (Gass).
This bill can also be known as “Church Protection Act” and it was recently signed on April into Mississippi law (Gass). This act will allow some churches to undergo special training to carry guns inside their houses of worship in an attempt to help people feel more secure (Gass). This law was inspired by the events that happened in Charleston, South Carolina (Gass). This act allows individuals selected to protect the church, he or she will be allowed to carry weapons into the church for protection and will not need a permit in order to openly carry in public; as long as it’s in a visible holster (Gass).
As the debate continues onto whether or not there should be more gun regulation, the side that presents more money toward their political agenda tends to have a better shot: “big money talks. ” The National Rifle Association spends sixty-six times what the Brady Campaign to End Violence Foundation does on lobbying for pro-gun legislation and to keep pro-gun regulations from reaching the Senate floor (Bartolomeo). Much of this spending can be attributed to the amount of money pro-gun lobbyists use to fund political campaigns of political candidates who would help vote “no” on gun regulations (Horowitz).
House Speaker John Boehner (2011-2015) and current Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell are no strangers to the big contributions that pro-gun lobbyists have made towards continuing the fight against gun regulations, both racking up a total of $133,490 worth of contributions between 2013-2014 (Horowitz). The spending on lobbying and contributions between pro-gun groups and gun control groups have a large difference of $31million to $4. 5million, most of which is being spent by pro-gun groups (Horowitz). The expansion of background checks was proposed onto the House floor but has managed to be voted off (Berlow).
Of the forty-six senators who voted to prevent the expansion of background checks, forty-three of them had received contributions towards their political campaigns or independent expenditures since 2000 (Berlow). The NRA has donated $81 million towards House, Senate and presidential campaigns since the early 2000’s (Berlow). Pro-gun lobbyists don’t stop at funding political campaigns in attempts to ensure politicians who would protect gun rights get voted in, they also go as far as funding smear campaigns against opponents of gun rights (Berlow). In 2010 the NRA spent $1. 79 million to lect Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania Republican) and spent $1. 15 million on negative publicity to defeat his Democratic opponent Joe Sestak Jr. (Berlow). The pro-gun lobbyists main goal here is to control the flow of legislation by ensuring that the people they invest their money into are preventing pro-gun regulation votes from happening and keeping bills far away from becoming an actual law (Berlow). The NRA has had its years of political influence, ensuring that a pro-gun agenda is put before gun regulation. From the early 1990’s the NRA began to target any program that challenged a pro-gun agenda, spreading its influence far and wide.
The NRA has managed to play a large role to ensure little to no research is performed on seeing what effects guns have on people. Back in 1996 the NRA was successful in stopping the “Rosenberg Program,” which had the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention do a study that concluded the risks of having a loaded gun in the home outweighed the benefits (Thacker). At an attempt to inform the public of the effects guns have on the public, the NRA didn’t appreciate the information causing the end to an informative program.
Another study from 2009, similar to the one the CDC did, had the National Health Institute concluded that a person carrying a gun was nearly 4. 5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than someone who is unarmed (Thacker). The NRA claimed that research like this is “illegitimate” (Thacker). Rep. Jay Dickey came to the NRA’s defense by attempting to sponsor an amendment that ripped the CDC of a $2. 6 million budget back in 2011 (Thacker). The NRA’s powerful influence can stem from their political activism.
Groups with a large number of followers usually focus on a multitude of problems, for example the AARP tries to sway influence on healthcare, social security, and ballet access laws (Palmer). The NRA on the other hand only has one focus: gun control. This focus leads them to pursue legislative actions toward ensuring U. S. citizens have access to their constitutional right to bear arms (Palmer). The NRA can also vouch that it’s a single issue voter, meaning when asked the question “do you think we need more gun regulation” they all jump to the same conclusion “no” (Palmer).
Politicians fear the NRA due to the amount of influence, and money they have because they are fully aware that they can take a career through victory or failure (Palmer). Politicians also fear NRA activism from its members, when the NRA tells its followers to write or call their representative in order to ensure they vote “no” on a gun regulation bill, their followers will do it without hesitation (Palmer). Their large margin of four million followers has helped them through social media, activism, and campaign events (Palmer).
The NRA didn’t start out as a lobbyists group but in the 1970’s they were sent to lobby for gun rights against Congress (Palmer). In a most recent case to indicate how powerful the NRA influence is we can take a look at the legislation trying to be passed after the San Bernardino shooting. Senate Democrats tried to pass a measure denying guns to anyone on the “no fly list” after indicating that both San Bernardino shooters were on the list but were still able to buy guns legally (Lichtblau). The NRA got busy and reached out to their millions of followers in an attempt to stop a bill that would deny someone a chance to buy a gun (Lichtblau).
Chris Cox, NRA lobbyist chief, and other NRA lobbyists began to meet with Senators and contact them in order to stop this legislation from passing (Lichtblau). When it came down to vote, not only did the Senate reject the measure denying anyone on the no fly list from purchasing a gun, they also rejected an act that would have expanded background checks (Lichtblau). NRA influence is powerful and vocal, leaving pro-gun regulation lobbyists feeling as if their options are limited. The Second Constitutional right guarantees the right to bear arms for anyone; it doesn’t discriminate against race, gender, or wealth.
There are various cases that talk about whether American citizens do have a right to bear arms. In United States v. Cruikshank (1875) it was concluded that the Second Amendment did not grant individuals the right to bear arms, instead it only granted the state the right to maintain a militia (Schmoop). Since militias were to be state regulated and were only meant to assemble if there was a threat from the federal government, the courts gave the states the power to regulate guns in any” matter they see fit” (Schmoop). A few years after this case, the court decision on the case was affirmed in Presser V. Illinois (1886).
Herman Presser was organizing his own German-American workers’ militia in an attempt to fight security forces that were being hired by industrial employers (Schmoop). The state made an argument concluding the dangers of his personal militia and reminded the court that his act was illegal while Presser argued that he was well within his second constitutional right to form a militia (Schmoop). The court confirmed with Presser and ruled on the Second Amendment, the courts stated that the Second Amendment was intended to only restrict the Federal Government (Schmoop).
The courts then continued to say that there is no prohibition against actions committed by the States and concluded that Illinois could have the power to regulate a “private militia” (Schmoop). United States v. Cruikshank (1875) and Presser V. Illinois (1886) apply to today’s fight on gun rights due to the argument that the Second Amendment only gives militias the power to bear arms, not an individual person. Also, today we no longer have militias instead we have the National Guard, giving the federal government control over them and providing them with funds (Schmoop).
The most recent case to question individuals right to bear arms is District of Columbia V. Heller (2008). The District of Columbia made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibited the registration of handguns (District of Columbia v. Heller). Dick Anthony Heller was a police officer that applied for a one-year license for a handgun but was denied, Heller then went on to sue the District of Columbia on the basis that he was being denied his Second Amendment constitutional right (District of Columbia v.
Heller). The court ruled alongside Heller confirming that D. C. ’s ban on registering handguns and their requirements to keep guns in the home disassembled was in violating the Second Amendment (District of Columbia v. Heller). While Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia gave the opinion of the court he mentioned the first clause within the Second Amendment in which the term “militia” is mentioned.
Justice Scalia continued his argument on how the term “militia” should not be limited to those who serve in the military he continued to make a case about how prohibiting able bodied people from purchasing guns is giving the government and military more power which is what the Second Amendment was trying to protect the people from (District of Columbia v. Heller). Whether one argues against gun regulation or is for gun regulation, the Heller case has a significant point; if we deprive people from certain constitutional rights then we are taking away what the Constitution was intended for: securing rights.
