Gun Control

There is a long history of State of Texas conflicting with the federal government over laws and policies, particularly when dealing with environmental, social, and educational issues. Texas has conservative views hence its conflict with the federal government. Their differences lie on the basis of opposing political and social views. One major issue that has arisen over time is that many states across the U.S have weakened their laws regulating private citizens to carry concealed weapons. Texas is considered a state with the least resistive gun control law among U.S. states. This paper addresses the contentious question of whether the gun control should be regulated by the federal government or by the state.

This paper will not advocate that there is a need for stricter gun laws to reduce violence. The National Rifle Association (NRA) argues that enforcement of existing laws is required to reduce gun violence rather than new gun laws. Stricter gun laws’ supporters oppose by saying enforcement alone is insufficient until loopholes in existing gun laws are closed (Batten, 2011). This paper stands on the neutral ground about this issue. It will focus on the issue of whether firearm regulation should be by state or federal government or a combination of both.

The Congress has strategized whereby states have the freedom to regulate firearms simultaneously with the federal government. There are two regulatory schemes, one at the national level, and one at the state level. Both sets of regulations are mandatory for anyone involved in purchasing or ownership of a firearm. For example, it is unlawful for a federally licensed dealer to sell a handgun to persons below twenty-one years. It is unlawful to sell guns to persons below sixteen years in Texas. Gun dealers in Texas must comply with the federal stricter law.

There are over 1 million guns (rifles and handguns) in Texas. Despite the perspective that Texas is a safe place, deaths caused by firearms in the state are approximately the same percentage of deaths in the whole nation. From the study, it is depicted that there are high deaths caused by suicide. Domestic violence takes nearly 50% of homicide cases (Batten, 2011). These statistics suggest stricter gun laws would help to minimize the level of gun violence in the US.

Designing a regulatory policy that imposes the full cost of gun ownership to the responsible party is a challenge to policymakers. The primary issue of the debate over how to reduce gun violence has been the appropriate regulation of guns. The regulation is to account for private gun ownership externalities. A secondary issue is who should impose the rules between the two governments. Justification of government’s regulation of firearms is evident, but there exists a problem of whether the imposition of the law should be by the federal government or state governments.

The Modern gun control era began with the Sullivan Law in New York aimed at organized crime and youth groups. The question of which among the two governments should impose firearm regulation arose. Assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr led to the enactment of the Crime Control Act of 1968 (Batten, 2011). This paper discusses the cons and pros of federal versus state regulation. It will focus on advantages of a national set of rules on firearms rather than a set of rules of each state.

  The Second Amendment is limiting the federal government’s ability to control state militia. According to NRA, the Second Amendment protects individual gun ownership as it maintains the democratic process (Nampel, 2003). The association holds that mere regulation of guns can not change defected human characters. At this point, Constitutional provisions are unlikely to dictate whether firearms should be regulated by state or federal government. Gun regulation is viewed open to both levels of government (Batten, 2011).

Congress passed the first federal statute prohibiting the sale of handguns to private individuals in 1927. The federal government was preventing the flow of handguns from states with weak laws governing the sale of guns into stricter rules. By so doing, the Congress was supporting state regulations rather than federal laws in regard to gun control. Through the argument of NRA, handguns were removed from the bill in the National Firearms Act of 1934. The issue of gun control remained dormant from 1930s until Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King, Jr were assassinated in 1960s (Batten, 2011). Omnibus Gun Control and Safe Street Act of 1968 banned all shipment of handguns across state lines to individuals. The new federal law had a primary motive of protecting the state regulation. In 1968, the Gun Control Act banned the interstate shipment of rifles, shotguns, and prohibited sale of weapons to minors. NRA suggested Preemption by the proposed federal five-day waiting period. The suggestions of NRA were turned down by gun control supporters, and yet again states’ rights were respected.

The first state firearm regulation was passed by New York State in 1911 under Suvillan Law due to many immigrants entering New York. There is no proper documentation for Texas control on firearms. Texas has a significant number of gun laws that are considered to be weak. The laws on gun ownership are few. The following are the state legislative activities addressing gun violence. 

Unlawful possession of firearms is whereby anyone in Texas convicted of a serious crime from owning a gun five years after serving the sentence. Recently, this has extended to include juvenile offenders and those who are subject to domestic violence. It is unlawful to transfer from firearms to anyone under sixteen years (Bakal, 1966). There exists a statute in Texas that grants permit of concealed weapons (Robert B. Hill, 1971). Texas has had a system since 1979 whereby potential victims of domestic violence seek a court order. The state enacted two separate statutes meant to warn people of the danger of firearms. The state has passed strict municipalities prohibiting Texas cities from conducting any gun regulations.

Texas has not been aggressive in adopting firearms regulation. The state’s legislation has taken the initiative of protecting gun owners and gun manufacturers from both law and lawsuit. Neither the federal nor the state of Texas has taken the initiative to lead in firearm regulation. Federal or state action has no constitutional limitations. The preference for either federal or state law remains an unanswered question.

Favoring federal law is likely to be witnessed if an issue suggests intervention from federal government response. Conversely, if the issue is framed inviting state response, Favoring state control is likely to be observed. Gun control has been an issue of crime prevention. There is no clear mandate for federal or state firearm regulation. Constitutional principles of federal preemption and state’s rights can theoretically decide the issue. The debate is supported by these policies but does not determine the actual result. Desired uniform regulations for firearms provide an opportunity fo federal government to act.
References

Batten, D. (2011). Gale Encyclopedia of American Law. Detroit, Mich.: Gale.

Robert B. Hill,. (1971). Regulation of Subsurface Disposal in Texas: ABSTRACT. Bulletin, 55. doi:10.1306/819a3dfe-16c5-11d7-8645000102c1865d

Bakal, C. (1966). The right to bear arms. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Habib, M. The Future of Gun Control Laws Post-McDonald and Heller and the Death of One-Gun-Per-Month Legislation. SSRN Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1742636

Nampel, J. (2003). Concerned about the NRA. Nursing Management (Springhouse), 34(1), 6. doi:10.1097/00006247-200301000-00002