DC and Gun Control

1
DC and Gun Control

• Alex Peck
• Arthur Koner
• Period 5

2
The 2nd Amendment and the Controversy
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.

• Gun control advocates this right doesnt extend
  to military-type weapons and assault firearms

• The government is infringing on our civil
  liberties by trying to deny law-abiding citizens
  their absolute right to bear arms

But who is right? Safety or Liberty? What is more
important?
3
DC Gun Ban Problems (according to the NRA)

• The ban on firearms for home self-defense clashes
  with Congress reason for passing the Gun Control
  Act (1968)
• American citizens need to choose between
  protecting their lives and obeying the law
• The District is not legally obligated to protect
  its people, so the citizens shouldnt be
  criminalized for self-defense

4
Congress and DC Laws

• All DC budget reforms must pass through Congress.
• All DC laws must sit in Congress for review
  periods of 30-60 days during actual sessions.
• Why? The federal government is located in DC,
  so it has complete control over what happens
  there.
• The District of Columbia isnt a state, so it
  doesnt have sovereignty from congressional
  control

5
Crime-fighters National or State?

• The federal government has control over
  crime-fighting policy (US v. Miller, Gun Control
  Act of 1968, Brady Handgun Violence Prevention
  Act of 1993, etc.)
• Gun control is not really a crime fighting issue.
  It is an issue of constitutionality.
• Firearms can cause violent crime, which would
  harm the general economic well-being of an area,
  leading to decreased commerce. This is why
  Congress can make gun regulation laws.

?
OR
6
Supreme Court or NRA Whos Right?

• NRA the 2nd Amendment give individuals the
  absolute right to bear arms.
• Supreme Court Only the power of states to form
  militias is absolutely protected under the 2nd
  Amendment.
• AgainWhats more important? Safety or Liberty?
• People should be able to protect themselves, but
  should it come at the expense of constitutional
  legitimacy?

7
Gun Control Act (1968)
YOU CANNOT OWN A FIREARM IF

• You are under 18, except with the written consent
  of a parent or guardian.
• You were convicted in a federal court of a crime
  punishable by imprisonment for more than a year,
  unless that crime was related to business
  practices.
• You were convicted in a state court of a crime
  punishable by imprisonment for more than 2 years,
  unless that crime was related to business
  practices.
• You are a fugitive.
• You are addicted to any substance or unlawfully
  use a substance.
• You have been determined to possess mental
  deficiencies or have been committed to a mental
  institution.
• You are an illegal alien in the US or have a
  nonimmigrant visa.
• You were dishonorably discharged from the armed
  forces.
• You renounced your US citizenship.
• You have a restraining order issued by a court.
• You have been convicted of a domestic violence
  misdemeanor.

8
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993)

• Purchasers must wait up to 5 days for a
  background check to take place before they can
  buy a handgun. If it takes longer than 5 days,
  the purchase can take place regardless.
• A previous background check could bypass the
  wait.
• This only applied to a licensed handgun seller
  that is selling to a private individual.
• Sales between private parties couldnt be
  restricted Congress is unable to regulate
  intrastate commerce.
• The waiting period provision expired with the
  introduction of the National Instant Criminal
  Background Check System (NICS) by the FBI.

9
Printz v. United States (1997)

• The provisions of the Brady Bill are
  unconstitutional.
• At first, the rulings were negligible.
• Later, this case became crucial in supporting
  limits on federal power and states rights.

10
United States v. Lopez (1995)

• Alfonso Lopez carried a handgun cartridges to
  his school.
• Federal Government possessing a firearm in an
  educational area would lead to violent crime,
  affecting the general economic condition of the
  area due to less travel in the area
• Supreme Court possessing a gun near school has a
  negligible effect on interstate commerce. A law
  banning guns near schools has no economic
  relation.

• It reduced Congress authority in passing gun
  control laws and bolstered the case of gun rights
  advocates

11
What does all of this mean?

• Printz v. United States a victory for states
  rights
• Unconstitutional for the chief law enforcement
  officer in each local jurisdiction to conduct
  background checks
• Gives more power to the individual and states
  Congress cant regulate law enforcement in that
  aspect.

• US v. Lopez a victory for states rights
• It revives the role of the states in public
  policymaking and lessens the role of the federal
  government.
• This could affect other federal interstate
  regulatory laws, such as the Clean Water Act.

12
States Rights and Gun Rights?

• If you favor both states rights and the right of
  a person to bear arms, what happens if a state
  passes gun control laws?
• Solution - Either pick a side or stay out of the
  battle You cant be fully supportive of both
  sides of an argument!
• The only way to avoid being a hypocrite is to
  choose which is most dearest to you States
  rights or the individual?