Author: Areesha Beg of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University, Sonepat
INTRODUCTION
Gun violence in America has become an alarming issue, with public shooting capturing headlines and inciting widespread fear. According to a report by BBC, the US has reported 647 mass shooting incidents in 2022 alone. The societal impact of these shootings is acute, fueling political divisions and prompting urgent need for stricter gun control measures. The public’s anxiety of being unsafe in public areas like malls and schools is getting worse. Looking at the most recent incident, an assassination attempt at ex-president Donald Trump, shows the gravity of the issue where even well-known political leaders with heavy security are not safe. Tragic events like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and the Las Vegas concert massacre have left an unforgettable mark on the national consciousness, sparking intense debates over the right to bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment.
These incidents underscore the complex landscape of gun rights in America. This article aims to explore this issue by analyzing U.S. gun rights and contrasting them with stringent gun control measures in India.
BACKGROUND
The debate over right to bear arms started with the Second Amendment to the Constitution of United States which was adopted in 1791. The amendment gave individuals, right to carry to carry arms for self-defense. This amendment sparked various debates over the interpretation of the Article I Section 8 concerning the real intent of the framers behind the amendment whether the right to bear arms was provided to individuals in order to protect the government from enemies whenever necessary or for self-defense of individuals. The Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller held that ‘self-defense’ was the key element of the amendment, clearing all the uncertainties regarding the purpose of the Second Amendment. The subsequent case of McDonald v. City of Chicago further established this interpretation by stating that the Second Amendment is applicable not only to federal but also to the states.
The Second Amendment remains an ongoing issue in American society. People in favor of holding arms privately argue that it guarantees an essential liberty and a means of protection against crime to the individuals. On the other hand, proponents of gun control emphasize the need for regulation of possession of arms by individuals in order to curb gun violence and enhance public safety. This ongoing debate continues to shape the legal and political landscape of the United States, influencing legislation, court ruling, and public opinions.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The legal framework governing gun control in the United States is a complex network of federal and state regulations. Both federal and state often differ on the right to bear arms in public with states like California and New York having stricter regulations as compared to others. On the other hand, federal laws are more permissive regarding possession of firearms by individuals. Despite this, the increasing number of mass shootings and fear of safety has compelled the government to address these issues.
FEDERAL LAWS
Gun Control Act of 1968
The Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted to address the shortcomings of the National Firearms Act of 1934. The federal law aims to regulate the firearms industry and owners. It primarily focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms. The Act made stricter rules for issuance of license. It also includes certain prohibited categories of persons who are not allowed to own firearms. These are person under the age of 18, person convicted in any court, person addicted to drugs, person with unsound mind, or person discharged from Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
The GCA was first such major act to control firearms in the United States after the National Firearms Act 1934. It was a response to high-profile assassinations such as those of President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. the act served as a precedent for future gun control regulations in the U.S. it was later amended by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 which further expanded regulations on firearms. Despite addressing various firearms issues, the act did not fully address broader public safety measures related to gun violence. It primarily focused on commercial regulation of weapons. Issues such as domestic violence and gun trafficking were not extensively covered. These inadequacies have contributed to ongoing debates about gun control in the U.S. highlighting the need for continued reform in firearm regulations.
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 1993
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 1993 also known as the Brady Act is a U.S. federal law regulating firearms. The act requires checking backgrounds before the sale of firearm is completed. The Act established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which checks the background of the purchaser. A five-day waiting period was imposed on purchasers, after which the sale would be completed if approved by the NICS. The main aim of the Act was to prevent purchase of firearms to individuals with criminal background. Similar to the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act prohibits certain persons from transporting, receiving, or possessing any firearms. These include person convicted by a court, unlawful drug addict, person of unsound mind, etc. It also includes person convicted of crime of domestic violence.
CASE LAWS
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
The legislation of District of Columbia which forbade the ownership of handguns in homes and mandated that weapons must be stored unloaded, disassembled, or secured with a trigger lock, was challenged before the Supreme Court. The central issue was whether the legislation violated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which guaranteed the right to keep and bear Arms. The Supreme Court held that the ban by the District of Columbia was unconstitutional. It stated that the Second Amendment protects individual’s right to bear arms and the main aim of guaranteeing the right was self-defense rather than service in a militia. This landmark judgement marked a significant shift in the interpretation of Second Amendment, affirming individual rights to possess firearms for personal self-defense clearing all the uncertainties pertaining to the interpretation of the amendment.
McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
The Supreme Court in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago addressed the question whether the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller Case also applied to the states through Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Due Process Clause states that no State shall enact any legislation that would restrict the rights or privileges of the citizens of the United States nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Supreme Court held that the right to bear arms was equally applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment. With the Supreme Court ruling the stance of individual’s possession of firearms was once again strengthened reinforcing the right to bear arms at local level. The judgement again sparked debates over public safety highlighting concerns about risks posed by uncontrolled firearm possession by individuals.
HOW THE U.S. CAN ADDDRESS GUN VIOLANCE ISSUE
Strengthening enforcement of existing laws: The government should ensure proper implementation of current laws, including penalties for illegal firearm possession, trafficking and violation of safety regulations.
Implementing assault weapon bans: In order to reduce gun violence, the U.S. government should enact and enforce bans on the sale and possession of certain high-capacity and semi-automatic firearms that are often used in mass shootings and other violent crimes.
Providing amnesty period: Countries such as Australia and New Zealand provided amnesty period where individuals were given chance to voluntarily surrender unregistered firearms. The U.S. can implement such program in order to remove firearms from circulation, particularly those that are illegal or unregistered, without penalizing individuals who come forward during the amnesty period.
INDIAN PERSPECTIVE
Unlike U.S., India has more stringent firearms regulations. India’s approach to gun ownership has been shaped by its colonial history. The Indian Arms Act of 1959 reflects the strict control and regulation of arms under Indian laws. The act was designed to curb violence and ensure that firearms do not fall into the wrong hands, prioritizing public safety over individual right to bear arms. The act covers various aspects such as acquisition, possession, manufacture, sale, import, export, and transport of arms and ammunition in India. The age limit under the Act for acquiring a gun license is 21 years. The act has provision which requires that person applying for the license of an arm must not have been convicted of any offence involving violence or moral turpitude 5 years prior to commencing the application. The 2019 amendment to the Act reduced the number of firearm that an individual can possess from 3 to 2, making it more difficult for a person to procure arms. The Act also stipulates penalties and punishments for offense of sale and possession of prohibited arms. India’s approach to firearms regulation provides a robust framework that could offer valuable lessons for the U.S. By adopting similar regulations, the U.S. could enhance its ability to manage and mitigate gun violence effectively.
CONCLUSION
Gun violence remains a critical issue in the United States, with mass shooting and high-profile incidents underscoring the urgent need for effective regulatory measures. While the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees right to bear arms, the growing concern for public safety calls for reassessment of current gun control policies. In contrast, India’s stringent firearm regulations illustrate a different approach to managing firearm ownership and reducing violence.
As the debate continues, it is essential for policymakers to address the issues by properly examining the current legislations and address the shortcomings. The U.S. government can integrate elements from countries such as India, Australia and New Zealand that could pave way for a safer and more controlled environment. It is essential to maintain a balanced approach where individual’s right to own arm does not violate the rights of general public. By adopting effective regulatory measures from both domestic and international examples, the U.S. can work towards comprehensive strategy that respects individual freedoms while prioritizing public safety.
