Private Gun Ownership: Pro or Con

The United States Supreme Court has actually ruled that weapon ownership is a basic right of the people of the United States. There are some people that feel that they can now own any weapon that they desire. There are still specific weapons that are prohibited for the typical person to own these are weapons that are regulated to the military and some law enforcement. There are Federal rules that must be observed and satisfied prior to an individual obtaining a weapon.

These are security rules and rules that are suggested to keep weapons far from kids and convicted felons in addition to other irresponsible people who might perhaps hurt or eliminate another individual. All legitimate weapon owners understand that weapons eliminate and there must be some kind of gun control in order to avoid accidents from occurring. Accidents are not the only factor for supporting gun control.

Another factor is to avoid crook's, felons, the psychologically ill, as well as abusers of spouses or husbands from having access to weapons that can be used to daunt or hurt another person.

Get quality help now

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

Proficient in: Gun Control Laws

4.7 (235)

“ Amazing writer! I am really satisfied with her work. An excellent price as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Better law enforcement of the existing gun laws must be used by the law enforcement firms. If much better police of current weapon laws were done then that would show that law abiding people do not require to feel that they need guns for self-protection.

Severe weapon laws along with gun confiscation are not the answer to the weapon problems facing us Better enforcement of present laws are. On June, 28, 2010 The United States Supreme Court bied far a choice by a vote of 5 to 4 that verified weapon ownership as an essential right of the American individuals.

Prior to this choice the cities and states felt that it was their rights and duty to be able to control who or what sort of guns the people could own. As in many circumstances the states only check out part of the Constitution, which part was the part that would.

In 2004, domestic diva Martha Stewart was convicted of obstruction of justice, making false statements, and two counts of conspiracy in connection with dubious stock transactions. Although sentenced to only five months in jail plus a period of supervised release, she risked a much harsher punishment. Because she was convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison, federal law bans her from having any gun. n1) Her ban is for life, unless the Attorney General lifts the disability--a decision in his discretion and that he effectively cannot make because Congress regularly bars the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives from spending any money to review petitions to lift firearms disabilities. ( n2) Is the public safer now that Martha Stewart is completely and permanently disarmed?

More to the point, how could such a ban be constitutional, now that the Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller,( n3) not only has confirmed that the Second Amendment secures a personal right to keep and bear arms, but also has emphasized its historical tie to the right of self-defense? The Court, in dicta, told everyone to move along. It asserted, without citation, that "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons" were "longstanding" and declared them "presumptively lawful. ( n4)

The D. C. Circuit decision below, which Heller affirmed, similarly offered that bans on felons keeping and bearing arms "promote the government's interest in public safety consistent with our common law tradition" and "do not impair the core conduct upon which the right was premised," primarily self-defense. ( n5) But it cited only Supreme Court dicta from 1980,( n6) which Heller subsequently disparaged. ( n7)

The Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson,( n8) the first decision of a circuit court to adopt an individual-right interpretation, stated that a ban on possession by felons "is in no way inconsistent with an individual rights model," citing an older Supreme Court dictum stating that bans on carrying concealed weapons do not violate the Second Amendment and a handful of law review articles contending that Founding-era England and America excluded felons from the right to have arms. n9) Emerson's holding, like Heller's, did not involve disarming a felon, although the court did uphold a related federal disability applied to a man subject to a restraining order that included a finding that he was a threat to his wife's physical safety.