On Thursday January
24, 2013, democratic California Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced the Assault
Weapons Ban of 2013. The ban
was introduced shortly after the devastating Sandy
Hook Elementary shooting in Newton Connecticut where twenty children and six
adult staff members were murdered by an assailant who entered the school armed
with two semiautomatic pistols and a semiautomatic rifle. Following several past mass shootings
such as the Virginia Tech in 2007, and the Aurora, Colorado movie theatre
massacre in 2012, the Sandy Hook tragedy reignited a national debate on gun
control. Feinstein, who herself
became San Francisco’s mayor in 1978 after her predecessor was shot and killed,
has a long
history of fighting against gun violence.
Feinstein’s 2013
ban seeks to reinstate law from the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which expired in 2004. Several key proposals in Feinstein’s 2013
ban include the following:
-
Banning the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of 157
specifically named firearms and shotguns, as well as handguns with at least one
military function;
-
strengthening the 1994 Assault
Weapons Ban and various
state bans by moving from a two characteristic test to a one characteristic
test in determining what constitute an assault rifle;
-
banning large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than ten
rounds; and
-
protecting the rights of legitimate hunters and existing gun owners by excluding 2,258 legitimate hunting
and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model. It
also excludes weapons that are lawfully possessed, manually operated, classified
as antiques, and those used by law enforcement.
Feinstein’s ban has been criticized for
its impracticability. Critics
claim that by addressing specific firearms, the ban more
easily opens itself to opposition centered upon the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment
states, “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.” The
interpretation of the Second Amendment has been a common issue in our nations
gun debate. In the 2008 Supreme
Court case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment
protects an individual’s right to possess firearms for traditionally lawful
purposes such as self-defense. Feinstein’s
ban excludes banning legitimate hunting rifles and weapons that are lawfully
possessed. However, she seeks to
ban a number of shotguns and handguns with at least one military function.
The implications of the term “keep and
bear arms” in the Second Amendment, has also been well debated. In Heller,
the majority held that the right to keep and bear arms is not limited to the
use of the military. Conversely, in
the dissent, Justice Stevens argued that implications of the Second Amendment’s
terminology suggest that the framers intended for the phrase to refer only to individuals
in service of a state-organized militia. If this were not the case, Justice Stevens argues, the
framers would have added an additional phrase such as "for the defense of
themselves."
Feinstein’s 2013 ban seeks to narrow
the determination of what qualifies as an assault rifle. In the 1994 ban, an assault rifle was
defined as a semi-automatic firearm that was capable of a detachable magazine
and possessing two characteristics similar to a military-style firearm. An example of a military-style characteristic
is a grenade launcher, which allows grenades to be launched at extensive
distances with defined accuracy. Other military-style characteristics include
pistol grips, and barrel shrouds, which allow a gunman to more easily maneuver
large assault weapons. In the new 2013
ban, only one defining military-style characteristic is needed to classify a
weapon as an assault rifle. At a
press conference, Feinstein
stated that one of the criticisms of the 1994 ban was the ease at which
manufacturers could move around the two characteristic test by eliminating one
of the characteristics. Thus, the
current legislation seeks to make it more difficult for manufacturers to
legalize certain firearms.
Feinstein’s ban comes along side
proposals from the Obama administration to tighten gun laws. On January 16, 2013 President
Obama issued twenty-three executive orders to reduce gun violence. Additionally, President
Obama has vowed to sign Feinstein’s legislation if it withstands
significant hurdles in Congress.
Both President Obama’s executive orders
and Feinstein’s assault rifle ban have received widespread criticism. Democratic
Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota stated in an interview that no
amount of gun regulation or executive orders would be successful in identifying
individuals likely to commit mass shootings. Democratic
Senator Jon Tester of Montana refuses to support or oppose gun bans. Instead his sentiment echoes widespread
debate concerning gun control, which hinge towards exploring the effects of comprehensive
factors such as video games and mental health on gun violence.
The events of Sandy
Hook were undeniably tragic. However,
the momentum that surfaced immediately following the shooting has appeared to
dwindle. Lawmakers acknowledge
that mass shootings are a problem but are indecisive on what action to take. Many lawmakers express strong support in
the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Additionally, we
live in a nation where rifles are commonly used for hunting, collection, and
sport. The White house has even released a recent photo of President
Obama shooting skeet at Camp David.
A comprehensive approach is needed for the complexities that encompass
gun violence. There are various
types of gun violence, which are not limited to mass shootings, domestic
violence, suicide, and daily violence in major cities. The fact that various policies will have
an alternate impact on each one of these issues may account for some of the
caution policymakers express when grappling with gun control legislation.
Raziya Brumfield,
Criminal Law Brief, BloggerImage courtesy of www.kevinbryant.com
No comments:
Post a Comment