Question A.
One issue that I think the Federal Government should resemble California more on is stricter gun laws. In California there is a ten day waiting period between the purchasing of a firearm and when the person receives it. The Federal Government does not have a law requiring a waiting period; on the contrary, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System states that once the purchaser passes the background check which can be done in minutes they are given the firearm (projects.scpr.org). Implementing a waiting period would at least halt the process by a bit. California also limits purchases of handguns to one within a thirty day time span. The federal Government does not limit the amount of handguns one can purchase. While I respect people's right to own
…show more content…
a gun, I do not see why someone would need to purchase or own a large quantity of firearms. In my opinion, having a set limit, as California does would benefit the United States as a whole. Similarly, to carry a weapon in California one must have a permit issued by a sheriff or police chief (projects.scpr.org).
The Federal Government does not require citizens to have a permit to carry a weapon, but should. Simply reducing the amount of guns out in the world is not going to end all problems, but would act as a preventative measure. Moreover, California does not allow ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 cartridges or rounds to be made or sold, while the Federal Government does not have a law against this. In regards to purchasing a firearm, California law states that all sales must be made via a licensed dealer under the Dealer Record of Sale process. The Federal Government is not as strict in this regard as it does not require that a record is kept if the purchase is from an unlicensed private seller in the same state. I think it is extremely important for the government to be able to access records of gun ownership. The Dealer Record of Sale process in California requires those looking to purchase a firearm to present an identification card, for non-US Citizens this could be in the form of an Alien Registration Number (projects.scpr.org). Proof of California residency is also required. Federally, if a background check cannot be completed within three days the purchaser may still receive
the firearm. Private sellers are not required to perform background checks on people looking to purchase a gun. Since private sellers are not required to perform background checks, it is not possible for the government to ensure that people who are prohibited from buying guns--such as those convicted of crimes, fugitives, addicts, and those with mental discapacities--are prevented from obtaining guns. The previously mentioned are all listed as restricted from buying firearms by the federal government, but in reality it could be easy for them to purchase a gun due to the lenience of federal laws. The regulations the government sets as standards are not sufficient to ensure the safety of the country; therefore, by adopting some of the laws that are enforced in California the federal government would be taking a step forward in the protection of its citizens. Question 1. From the knowledge that I have obtained, I feel confident to say that the Federal Government has more power than state governments do. A prime example of this lies in the Supremacy Clause. The Constitution explicitly states that the laws of Congress shall be “the supreme law of the land.” Therefore, the laws of the Federal Government will always be of higher stature than those of the states. The Federal Government also regulates much of what the states can and cannot do. Also stated in the Constitution is that states cannot enter in agreement or compact with another state without the approval of Congress. Much of the Federal Government's power lies in Congress’ both expressed and implied powers. This is huge in that the federal government's power is not limited to what is explicitly stated in the Constitution, but is open to interpretation, which is fundamental for a developing government. For example, the establishment of a Federal Bank was not outlined as a power of the Federal Government, but it was allowed due to the Necessary and Proper Clause. The Court system has also contributed in showing the power of the Federal Government. Cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden have greatly established the power of the Federal Government. In the case McCulloch v. Maryland, the court ruled that Congress had the authority to develop a National Bank, and that the state could not tax the government for the bank. This was an impactful decision because the courts upheld that the Federal Government has powers that are not necessarily explicit, but are provided for by the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution (oyez.org). The Necessary and Proper Clause lends Congress the power to create laws necessary and proper to further the advancement of the government. Also, this decision would set a precedent that the states could not impose on the power of the Federal Government. Similarly, the case of Gibbons v. Ogden supported the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which gives the Federal Government complete power to regulate interstate commerce (oyez.org). Federal power within the judicial system can be further seen by the fact that amendments are applied to states by selective incorporation; this means that each amendment of the Bill of Rights is individually granted to the states. By applying rights individually to states the power of the states is lessened. The power of the Federal Government can also be seen in the possible consequences of the cases tried. Federal courts hear cases of higher concern and therefore consequences are usually jail time; whereas state trial courts hear less severe cases and consequences are usually monetary. Another power the Federal Government posses is the ability to regulate the economy. An indirect way that the Federal Government expresses their control over state governments is by grants-in-aid. These grants can come in the forms of: categorical grants, project grants, formula grants, and block grants. These grants are to be used for a particular purpose set by the Federal Government, and sometimes include qualification requirements. Sometimes, if a state refuses to comply with a certain demand of the Federal Government, the grant will be withheld. An example of this would be city police refusing to take action against immigrants as ordered by the Trump administration. During times when the economy is weak we look to the Federal Government to stimulate the economy by increasing federal spending and decreasing the rate of the Federal Reserve. In this way the Federal Government exerts its power in influencing taxation, spending, and borrowing. Question 4. Upon reviewing the descriptions of what constitutes being a liberal versus a conservative, I believe my friend Katlyn is a liberal. One of the defining characteristics of liberalism is expressing concern for political involvement in the environment. A couple of months ago Katlyn, upon watching documentaries regarding health and the environment and doing a substantial amount of research, decided to go vegan. Having been an avid carnivore all of her life when asked why she decided to go vegan Katlyn responded that she believed it was the healthiest option not only for herself, but for the environment as well. She has always stressed being kind to the planet and taking care of our home because of all the beautiful gifts it provides for us. This is all supported by her family’s frequent trips to the beach, Big Bear, Lake Tahoe, and Yosemite National Park. Recently, she has brought up the change in air quality as a concern. Katlyn has also always been a vocal feminist. Most recently one of her favorite netflix binges has been Cable Girls. A show based in 1920s Madrid following four women who face many obstacles all to get jobs as telephone receivers in order to gain their independence and move closer toward equality. Talking about the pay gap and remembering how women’s suffrage was gained only since the 1920s always bewilders her. Like most liberals, in regards to abortion, Katlyn supports pro choice as she thinks that in all instances women should be the ultimate deciders of what happens with their bodies. In light of recent events involving gun shootings in schools, Katlyn is a strong proponent of abolishing the second amendment altogether. In this day and age she does not think it is a necessary right to have. In regards to U.S. involvement in foreign countries, Katlyn thinks that the United States shouldn’t make it their responsibility to go to other countries and fight their wars. She especially believes this in relation to the Vietnam War; however, she thinks that it is necessary to help refugees, such as those from Syria. The liberalist view concerns itself with expanding social services. Katlyn’s ideals concur with this belief as she is most concerned about the lack of emphasis on funding for education. She thinks it's absurd how so much money goes to the military, but so little goes to our school systems. She is saddened by this because she sees this allocation of money as a representation of U.S. values--values where the education of future generations is not prioritized. Katlyn is moved by the words of James Baldwin who she admires for his eloquence, wit, honesty, and belief that there is no label more important than the human being. She is most moved by his challenge to individuals to consider life from another person’s point of view; as he emphasizes that you have power to do, give, or change something but you yourself are not the world. Overall, I think that all of these characteristics together make Katlyn a liberal. References Berman, R. (2017, March 31). The Republican Majority in Congress Is an Illusion. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/the-republican-majority-in-congress-is-an-illusion/521403/ Comparing Gun Laws. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://projects.scpr.org/charts/gun-laws/ Republicans control all of Washington. Why aren't they winning more? (2017, April 25). Retrieved from https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/0425/Republicans-control-all-of-Washington.-Why-aren-t-they-winning-more {{meta.pageTitle}}. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/
Right now, the U.S. has a National Instant Background Check System; however, it contains many flaws. This system is meant to act as a filter to stop the wrong people from having guns. In 2007, the Bipartisan legislation was passed to strengthen this system. It relies on data supplied by the states, but the data is often incomplete and inadequate (Merino 104). Unlicensed gun sellers have also created a dangerous loophole. The law makes an exception for gun sellers who aren’t federally licensed gun dealers. These sellers sell guns informally through venues such as gun shows, and are not required to run background checks. This is a dangerous loophole where people who should not have guns can get them (“Gun”). Senator Frank R. Lautenberg once stated, commenting on the gun sh...
As the generations of America’s youth continue to grow, so does the increase in violent crimes associated with each generation. Over the last decade, studies have shown that school shootings have increased by an astonishing 13%. Although this figure as a percentage does not seem like much, it makes one stop and think. Parents blame the video games and their violent behaviors for the influence on their children’s daily lives. Grandparents blame the child’s parents for not showing them the right way to grow up in the world. And then we have that child’s friends who say that this child just was not respected by their classmates, or perhaps even bullied into this violent nature. Regardless of the cause to this violent increase, many Americans do believe in a solution: gun control. Gun control is the situation in which the federal government would put a ban on owning firearms. Contrary to what many “hard-core” Americans believe, gun control would not necessarily ban them from owning hunting rifles or even personal handguns. It would simply limit the ownership of semi-automatic assault rifles, and other rifles of this nature. This does not contradict the Second Amendment of the Constitution which states that American citizens have the Right to Bear Arms. I believe in the constitutional Right to Bear Arms, and I am against any attempt to eradicate that right for any American citizen: however, I am for gun control in the sense of lowering the possession of semi-automatic and fully-automatic rifles.
‘Useless laws weaken necessary laws.’ --- Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1775) Importantly, gun ownership doesn’t create a violent society, but lenient gun control does. Nevertheless, bans do not make something disappear, rather harder to control! Therefore a strict, uniform federal gun control system is far more essential so as to ensure no collateral effects of any gun uses!
The gun laws in California are some of the most restrictive in the United States. In order to purchase a gun legally, one must obtain a firearm safety certificate by passing a written test. There is a 10-day waiting period as well as many limitations on who may own a firearm. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are two democratic candidates who recently had a presidential debate in Flint Michigan for the 2016 election. The purpose of this essay is to compare both candidates’ standpoint on the subject of gun control and determine which candidate has the best policy.
Is it any coincidence that the states with the loosest gun laws in America tend to contribute to the highest amount of national gun deaths and injuries? This is one of the main questions we should be asking when deciding what is best for our country and its citizens. Although gun control has been an ongoing issue, certain events like the Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, and the Aurora, Colorado mass shootings have increased our attention to this topic. Although I believe that Americans possess the right to own a firearm, I believe there should be detailed screening and control systems to keep guns out of the wrong hands, to prevent more gun violence from happening in the future.
One way gun control advocates have tried to reduce the number of guns being issued to citizens of the United States of America is to require background checks. Background checks are performed on some weapons but they want a full background check for felonies, mental issues, proper classes, safety precautions to name a few. Background checks would make sure that if you have any type of police record you will be given a second look and make sure that you are fit to own a gun. (Asa Best) If you have a record this does not mean that you will not be able to own a gun it may just mean that your ch...
Right now the government has limited firearm purchasing only to people who pass certain steps. Gun control has risen as a controversial subject in the United States today. Many say gun control or banning of all firearms will help protect and make our country a better place. Reasons many are wanting to ban firearms are that the 2nd amendment is out dated and unjustified in this date and time. Writer Eugene Robinson states that “farmers wrote of “arms,” thinking about muskets and single shot pistols. They could not have foreseen modern rifles or high-capacity magazines.” Many agree with Mr. Robinson saying that back when the constitution was written they couldn’t have understood what was going to come in the future. Citizens also believe people have no reason to fight against intruders that come in their home that’s what the authorities are for. If people what to defend themselves why waste the money and time on having police? In this day and age why have weapons why not cut out all firearms and just be one happy country, it’s that simple, but is it really that simple? (“Assault Weapons Must Be Banned in
At present there are numerous regulations and restrictions on firearms imposed by the government. However there are no national mandated requirements or all encompassing legislation. The laws in place vary from state to state and are in some cases are poorly enforced. Hard evidence as to the effectiveness of these present regulations is ambiguous. The question as to how the government and society deals with gun control is unique to the USA. In a complex issue such as gun control both sides of the equation have valid arguments to be h...
This issue is a rising debate in our nation, which seems to go either way. Stricter enforcement is necessary to help rising problems in our nation today. It is essential that background checks are enforced more and to make sure military weapons be left to the military; there’s no need for people to have automatic guns located within their household. However, shotguns and hand guns should be left to Americans. The second amendment protects the American public’s right to bear arms. If something isn’t decided soon, then people will see rising problems in the future.
California does not have enough gun laws, they need more restrictions! Guns have been around our country for a long period of time. Serving its purpose in the battles United States of America has fought in. Thanks to the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment it gave United States citizens to own and practice the right to bear arms. In other words James Madison gave people the right to protect themselves then and ourselves now from any militia or these days our self-defense. Unfortunately our right to bear arms has begun to be infringed upon not long after the Second Amendment. Throughout the years most restrictions and new laws to purchase and own a gun were reasonable, given the certain circumstances, such as passing a test showing as the
The California Legislature is currently debating a bill that would require handgun owners to be licensed by the state. And amid the debate over Assembly Bill 273, you can be sure there will be claims that burdening law-abiding gun owners with more regulations is necessary to "protect our children" from gun violence.
Gun control is a highly controversial topic in today’s world where the fight is between the liberal and the conservatives. Many people believe that guns should be banned due to many recent massacres that have happened whereas others are wanting people to have background checks done before owning a gun. I am against gun control because banning handguns in the United States should not be allowed because handguns fail to protect the people and it is ineffective.
The topic of gun control comes with a widely spilt crowd. Some people believe that gun control is essential, especially in today’s world. Some people think gun control will help with decreasing crime and making the nation a safer place for us to live. On the other hand, there are people who speak of anti-gun control. These people believe the right to bear arms would make our nation a safe place to live due to the fact that we would have protection. Do you think the Government has the right to make something illegal like the right to bear arm? In my opinion, the Government cannot simply because it will be an offence to our founding fathers, who gave us the national right to bear arm. Also, for making
As of 2013, all 50 states allow concealed carry of handguns (Concealed Carry Reciprocity Maps), although a few states don’t require a permit and the standards for licensing vary greatly from state to state. In the U.S. most states are “Shall Issue” states. This means they will grant anybody a permit that meets certain guidelines such as being 21 or older and not having any felony convictions, a history of mental illness or domestic abuse. A handful of other states are “May Issue” states. In these other states, such as Maryland, a permit will only be issued if you can prove you need it. This can be a large obstacle and these states will usually only issue permits to people in the public eye, wealthy individuals that are well-connected or business owners frequently transporting large sums of cash (Concealed Carry Reciprocity Maps). Although the requirements and standards are different wherever you may live, one thing holds true- concealed carry permit holders are rapidly growing. The market for handgun training, concealed carry courses and smaller, more concealable handguns have opened up. When concealed carry was first gaining popularity there were two very different schools of thought. Some thought that violent crime would decrease, as criminals would fear the everyday person that just may happen to be armed. Others thought that having people carrying around concealed handguns in public would lead to an increase in violent crime with people losing their temper and shooting each other. When analyzing the data and crime trends, it is clear that with this influx of concealed carry permit holders there has not been a corresponding increase in violent crime.
The discussion about gun control is far-gone, and America should enact laws that will require gun owners to register their firearms. A background check on every citizen bearing a gun is necessary so that guns do not land in the arms of felons and the mentally ill. Thinking that people can use guns to fight for their liberty is a far gone idea that needs a second thought. However, gun control is not the only solution because it is necessary to educate the population on the risks of keeping guns and asking them to remit the guns at their own will.