Legal Issues

The American society today faces a number of security challenges coming from both external and internal groupings. Whereas the American government has stood firm against external aggression, it still has a long way to go in tackling the internal security challenges, particularly with citizens being allowed by the law to possess guns. And with the increase of criminal activities using guns, particularly amongst children, there has emerged a fierce debate on whether American citizens should be allowed to have fire arms at home.

The Controversy on the Bearing of Arms
There is a constant tag of war between those people who want arms to be controlled by states and those who feel that such controls will tantamount to subverting the Second Amendment, hence stifling individual liberties. According to Alliance for Justice, the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that 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. They offer an example of a last year case where this right was upheld by the Supreme Court in the District of Columbia V. Heller, the court upheld that the Second Amendment protects the right of an individual to possess and carry weapons in cases of confrontation.

Contrarily, other organizations like the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence advocate for control of guns through education, research and legal advocacy. In that vein, this organization harshly blames Obama for signing into law more repeals of federal guns than his predecessor and that he has failed to honor his campaign pledge of enacting strong new gun laws. The organization accuses Obama for not pushing for legal reforms that would enable background checks at gun shows, prohibit the sales of guns to suspected terrorists and give law enforcers the tools that they need to crack down on corrupt dealers and traffickers. ( HYPERLINK httpwww.bradycampaign.org httpwww.bradycampaign.org)
However, as observed by Carter, states have so far struggled to ensure that citizens do no take advantage of the Second Amendment to advance lawlessness. This is best illustrated by the verdict of States v. Kessler (1980), in which Kessler was charged of being in possession of a slugging weapon at his home in addition of behaving disorderly in the public. Kessler had argued during the trial that the charge of the slugging weapon within his home was a blatant violation of the Oregon Constitution, Article I, Section 27, which stipulates that people have to bear arms for their own defense and that of the state. He further argued that that Article of the Oregon constitution offered him the liberty to possess weapons of self-defense within his own home. (556)

Carter points out that that the state countered Kesslers assertions by stating that it had a reasonable right to put regulations on the possessions of such weapons with an aim of promoting the safety of the public.  While processing Kesslers claims, the court desisted from drawing a comparison to the Second Amendment, noting that this amendment is yet to be incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment that limits states actions. (556)

The Law, Children and How to Protect Children from Accessing Guns
The debate on guns possession enters into another dimension when it comes to children accessing guns and using them to commit crimes or avenging their peers. According to The Hotline, a journal on American issues, the United States continues to lead the world in child deaths from firearms. Children in the United States die or are badly injured, either because their parents or some other gun owners do not carefully store firearms. Subsequently, when children access these loaded arms they end up using them unintentionally on themselves or other children. Additionally, older children are more exposed to the risk from horseplay with available guns whereas teenagers use guns to carry out suicides and criminal activities. (1)

The journal further states that the rates of gun violence dramatically rose during the 80s and the early 90s, claiming lives of the American children. But from 1984 to 1994 there was a 222 increase of firearms deaths of children between 15-19 years of age, whereas the there was a 13 decrease of death rate from non-firearm homicide. Even though there has been a remarkable decrease of deaths from gunfire since 1994, firearms are still expected to overtake motor vehicle accidents as the leading cause of death amongst children. (1)

So far, according to Hotline Journal, there are very few laws that govern childrens access to guns. The Brady Law made it illegal for children under the age of 21 to purchase handguns from licensed dealers, even though there is a loophole that still makes it possible for 18-21 years olds to buy handguns from private or unlicensed individuals. For instance, the shooters in the Columbine High School massacre used four guns that were bought at gun shows, out of which three were purchased by an 18 year old who didnt have to undergo background check. (3)

The report in Hotline Journal concludes that, each state has different laws governing the transfer and possession of guns by juveniles. Most states permit teenagers to possess long-guns, including assault weapons. Besides, the Children Access Prevention (CAP) laws have been passed by 18 states. These states hold gun owners criminally liable if children access their weapons and in the process hurt themselves or somebody else. This law has been quite effective in cutting down firearm deaths amongst children. A 1997 study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association demonstrated a 23 decrease of accidental deaths of children from firearms. (3)

School Massacres
The massacres that have occurred at schools have prompted questions on the responsibility of parents and the society at large, to stop these incidents from happening. Often, these questions have ended in shifting the blame on both parents and the society. But in essence, both parties are to blame for the shootings that have occurred in schools and therefore, they both play a significant role in ensuring that they do not happen.

In trying to demonstrate how the society is responsible, Webber argues that many studies on the causes of adolescent violence have put much emphasis on understanding the rational basis of school violence, yet it is hardly clear what rationality has to do with any of the school shooting incidents without pointing at a rationale, which the public affirms. These studies are based on the reasons students are giving for committing the violent acts and due to that, they are invariably led to control for other factors in the violent acts, including the location of the institution, the identity characteristics of the actors and their interplay and the focus of the object of the violence. (33)

Webber concludes that school violence can best be understood through rational perspectives and because any offense can be apportioned a rational justification, the problem lies with the value-system that underscores the culture and society in which the child lives. This social interaction perspective brings forth a merge of a pattern to violent behavior, which stems from the negative impact of violent culture in the sense that adolescent behavior predictably mirrors the cultural symptoms. Consequently, the only way to change such behavior is to change the value-system. (33)

On the other hand, parents too have a responsibility to ensure that children are kept away from firearms. Bernstein observes that the weapons that children use at school often come from their homes. Many times, their homes appear to be normal from outside yet they are usually dysfunctional. For instance, an uncontrolled conflict between siblings can cause tremendous anger in a child, which the child could express outside their home, mostly at school. The parents of such children often do not know what their children are doing. These children come from homes where everyone keeps to themselves and there is little communication between the family members. Their parents are mostly inconsistent in playing the parenting role, thereby further angering their children. This frustration builds hatred in the child and heshe feels justified to vent it out through firearm violence. (89)

Bernstein offers that the most effective way of preventing school shootings is by involving both parents and teachers parents must be closely involved in the lives of their children they need to be honest with their children and provide support if they spot any sign of maladjustment on their children. And on the other hand, schools should have zero tolerance for any violent acts, providing the consequences routinely. (89)

Obama on Gun Control
President Obama has signed a number of gun laws, which have unruffled the feathers of anti-gun advocates. According to Chapman in Reason.com, an online magazine, Obama has signed a law that permits for guns to be taken into national parks. Besides, he signed another law that allows guns as checked baggage on Amtrak and he has also acted to preserve an existing law that limits the use of government information on the firearm it has traced. And this goes a long way in demonstrating that Obamas administration has tremendous respect for the Second Amendment.

Carrying Firearms for Protection
The carrying of firearms for protection has become a necessity in todays American society and this is for a number of reasons. As mentioned by Benson (1986), any dismal performance of law enforcers invariably results into a rise in violent crimes. An increase in criminal activities today doesnt only point to police inability to tackle crime but also the necessity for self-protection. In essence, the general public is of the idea that crime is on the rise and people are now reacting to this concern. If anything, the firearms that are used by private citizens brings with it a number of security advantages one of which being that this helps to deter crime. (75-77)