Since the deadly Parkland tragedy, many questions have arisen about the Supreme Court's stance on gun control and why it has been so adamant about protecting the right to bear arms despite the endless rash of shootings in America. A former Chief Justice stated back in 1991 that the 2nd Amendment was one of the greatest frauds committed on the American people, and that the right to bear arms declared in the amendment was not an individual one, but one for those called to serve in the military only. However, around 2008, more cases dealing with gun rights advocates emerged and changed the way the American public and courts interpreted the 2nd Amendment, and it was declared constitutional to own a handgun for self-protection. That same year, courts also said that just because it is legal for someone to bear arms, that does not mean the government cannot regulate them also. Strangely, despite the revelations following the 2008 cases, courts have been reluctant to hear more gun cases. This can be in part attributed to the guidelines set down for government gun regulation 10 years ago and justices' reluctance to return to the subject.
While I understand the court's distaste for revisiting a subject they thought they were finished with, it has been clearly seen through the mass shootings of the last several years that their suggestions need more legal enforcement because it is still remarkably easy for anyone to buy a weapon of mass destruction. In 2008, the Supreme Court merely stated that the government can ban guns in schools or for the mentally ill and create a list of qualifications necessary to acquire a firearm. Washington has either only weakly enforced certain bans and qualifications or not done anything at all for fear of backlash from gun rights activists or hold their own personal beliefs over the lives of innocents. If it was not obvious that change was desperately needed after any other shooting, it certainly is now and thanks to the Parkland survivors, progress is now.
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/05/590920670/from-fraud-to-individual-right-where-does-the-supreme-court-stand-on-guns
I think the problem here is that there are few if any major gun control laws to get taken to the courts due to the powerful lobbying of groups such as the NRA, and until the government actually takes steps to regulate the gun industry there won't be much in terms of federal power for the Supreme Court to debate.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Connor. I think it’s more regulatory at this point to debate the creation of new policies rather than trying to fix the very few we have on the polarizing issue
ReplyDelete