An Assault Weapons Ban

AN ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IS CONSTITUTIONAL 2
Abstract
A ban on assault weapons is one of the most polarizing issues in our nation today. Conservative groups rely on the individual right phrase in the Second Amendment to argue that individuals are guaranteed a right to possess handguns and assault weapons. They believe when high profile mass shootings occur the fault lies not with the weapon used, but with the individual pulling the trigger and his impetus for committing the heinous act. Liberal groups argue that if the assailant did not have access to such a devastating weapon, the impact on unsuspecting victims would be minimized. Limited by the Second Amendment, the federal government cannot institute a ban on assault weapons; consequently the onus falls to state and local jurisdictions. Not constrained by the Second Amendment, states can and should enact a ban on assault weapons to serve the needs and wishes of our communities.








An Assault Weapons Ban is Constitutional

Columbine high school, 13 dead. Aurora Movie Theater, 12 dead. Sandy Hook elementary school, 26 dead. The numbers of dead continue to rise, yet the solution continue to elude. Just the phrase assault weapons ban conjures an instant emotional response from most Americans. You are either in favor of banning assault weapons or against it; like most hot-bed issues, compromise never enters the dialogue. Due to increasing random incidents of mass shootings with assault weapons, our country is faced with the dilemma of what to do concerning these types of weapons. At the center of this debate lies the Second Amendment, and its interpretation by the Supreme Court. Two schools of thought emerge from this complex debate as to what can and cannot be done to stem the tide of misery the assault weapon inflicts upon our communities. Conservatives view the amendment as unfettered guarantees for all individuals to keep and bear arms. Progressives view the amendment as granting rights to bear arms, but not without reasonable restrictions. According to the Supreme Court, the amendment is in place to restrict the federal government from enacting gun measures, but not the state governments. To serve the needs of their respective communities, states can and should enact an assault weapons ban. The time to assuage the damage these weapons unleash upon our society is now.


In the cases of Columbine, Aurora, and Newtown a gunman or gunmen, armed with assault weapons, murdered unsuspecting American citizens for no apparent reasons. However strong the necessity and desire to enact an assault weapons ban after one of these events, equally strong is the opposition of any new legislation. Wayne Lapierre, Executive Vice President and CEO of the National Rifle Association asserts, “No gun ban has ever kept guns out of the hands of criminals—only prisons do.” (LaPierre, 1994, p. 60). Using this logic, it’s time we lift the ban on rape and murder since criminals are not respecting established law. Jailing the perpetrator of a mass shooting is little solace to families burying school aged children. The correct course of action is prevent the tragedy not punishment after the tragedy.


A ban of these weapons of mass destruction lies not within the federal government, but with state governments. The Second Amendment restricts the federal government from enacting gun measures, but not the state or local government. In a Supreme Court case in 1876, United States v Cruikshank, Drs. Jon Vernick and Stephen Teret argue that the court’s ruling meant that the Second Amendment applies to federal gun legislation, but not state legislation. (Vernick, Teret, 1993). Using this case as precedent, ten years later, the court upheld an Illinois law forbidding public marches with weapons. The Supreme Court bases it decisions on case law (how the court ruled on earlier, similar cases). Armed with this mandate, every state already has some form of gun legislation that is not affected by the Second Amendment. Michael Busch, BS, St. John’s School of Law, points out in United States v Emerson, the court “construed the right to bear arms as an individual right but stated: that does not mean that those rights may never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions….”(Busch, 2003). Current state gun control laws are tailored to meet the needs and wishes of their respective communities, such as, Virginia’s one gun per month law, or Connecticut’s recent ban on assault weapons. Other states have to follow Connecticut’s lead. Kenneth Lyons, former President of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, stated at a 1993 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, “these weapons have no sporting purpose—they are eminently more suitable for combat with humans than for hunting deer.”(Lyons, 1997, p. 165). Clearly the assault weapons of today have no place in a civilized society. The state and local politicos have an obligation to protect its citizenry from wanton violence. An assault weapons ban will maintain the right to bear arms, just not deadly assault weapons built to kill people quickly and efficiently. Attorney Stephen Gunn writes, “Restrictions on the ownership and possession of automatic and semi-automatic weapons and handguns and the licensing of guns will likely withstand scrutiny.” (Gunn, 1998).


However dormant this issue may lie at the moment, rest assured it will awaken with a cacophony of voices seeking a solution after the next public bloodletting. Connecticut’s assault weapons ban was born out of the tragedy at Sandy Hook elementary school. Must our nation have to wait for each state to endure such heart-rending labor pains, before giving birth to an assault weapons ban?