Gun politics
Debates about firearms policy (or gun politics) center on the role of privately owned firearms in crime and crime prevention, as well as on the role of these firearms in the balance of power between governments and the people.In summary, those who support gun control claim
- that there is no fundamental right to own weapons
- that gun control legislation helps to cut down on violent crime by reducing the availability of weapons
- that citizens have no need to own guns to protect themselves against governments or crime
- that guns are more dangerous to the owners than intended targets because most gun related deaths are a result of domestic violence, accidents and suicides.
- that owning weapons is a fundamental right
- that law-abiding citizens have a right to self-protection
- that letting law-abiding citizens have guns decreases crime by providing a deterrent effect
- that gun ownership protects citizens from the excesses of totalitarian government
- that the government has no right to interfere with individuals rights to own guns or any other inanimate object of private property as long as the individuals are not harming or intimidating their fellow citizens (often considered a private-property libertarian perspective)
| Table of contents |
|
2 Gun Politics in the United States 3 Gun Politics in Canada 4 Gun Politics in the UK 5 Gun Politics in Australia |
Advocates for citizens having the right to bear arms often point to totalitarian regimes that passed gun control legislation as a first step of their reign of terror. The sequence is said to be gun registration, followed some time later by confiscation. Nazi legislation is the most famous example of this sequence, but it also occurred in Marxist regimes.
This does not indicate that gun control laws will always lead to totalitarianism. Many places, such as the United Kingdom have had such laws for many years without becoming totalitarian. However, it should be noted that registration of firearms in many democracies has led to confiscations of formerly legal firearms and the outlawing of the ownership of firearms to various degrees.
Some persons oppose registration of guns or licensing of gun owners because if captured, the associated records would provide military invaders with a means for locating and eliminating law-abiding, (i.e. patriotic) resistance fighters. Location and capture of such records is a standard doctrine taught to military intelligence officers.
Weapon ownership is classically a right of a sovereign. In the U.S., citizens theoretically are sovereign, though their sovereignty is expressed collectively. Most countries which successfully pass gun control laws do not consider their citizens sovereign. This may be a root in the different attitudes of European and U.S. citizens on gun-control.
The private ownership of guns is an especially contentious political topic in the United States, where the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 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 meaning of this text remains fiercely debated, with some saying that the amendment only refers to official bodies under government control (such as the National Guard) and others saying that the amendment always guaranteed the right of independent individuals to possess and carry firearms. The first side argues that only "well regulated militia" have the right to keep and bear Arms. Others point out that books in the following statement are not restricted to University graduates only:
"A well graduated Academia, being necessary to the prosperity of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Books, shall not be infringed."
Earlier drafts of the United States Bill of Rights had much lengthier text that was trimmed as part of an overall effort by the Framers to shorten a document that was then perceived to be too wordy. Some constitutional scholars ascribe significance to these drafts, which tend to support a broader application of the Second Amendment. The constitutions of over 40 states provide more clearly written protection for the individual right to firearms ownership.
While the technology of firearm known to the Framers was primitive by comparison to today's weapons, individuals at that time were free to own a greater amount of destructive force than today. At the time of the nation's founding, individuals were free to own any weapon known, including cannons, field pieces and even fully-armed warships of the day. In fact, up until the National Firearms Act of 1934, ordinary Americans could lawfully own any weapons available anywhere, including anything the US military used, such as tanks, artillery, bombs and even high-explosives. No licenses and no registration were required.
Certain local jurisdictions, such as New York, had begun trying to restrict firearms ownership from minorities with registration schemes as early as 1911 and the former slave states had tried to prohibit black Americans from owning any sort of firearms starting shortly after the 13th Amendment was enacted officially freeing all slaves in 1865.
Some gun control advocates claim that only those types of weapons available to the public at the time the Second Amendment was ratified are protected by the Second Amendment, thus, they claim, Americans should only be allowed flint-lock muskets.
Gun rights advocates point to the writings of the Founders to indicate that the intent of the Second Amendment was to assure that the ordinary individual citizens of America would have the freedom of choice to own whatever sorts of weapons they wished.
Generally, both sides agree that so-called "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (i.e. biological, chemical and nuclear weapons) cannot have any legitimate purpose in the hands of individual and that even in non-hostile hands these weapons pose a serious threat due to the risk of even simple accidents during storage or transport. As such, most agree that even the broad protections of the Second Amendment for the right to keep and bear arms do not apply to "WMD's".
The US Supreme Court has never directly ruled on the actual meaning of the Second Amendment despite having had a variety of opportunities to do so. Gun rights advocates point out that the court has made statements that refer to this right as an individual right. These statements are found in cases unrelated to the Second Amendment. Gun control advocates point out that since the US Supreme Court has never taken a Second Amendment case and used it to strike down any gun control law. The de facto position from 1934 until 2002 was that the Second Amendment protects a collective right. In 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft and Solicitor General Theodore Olson announced their interpretation that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.
For some of the opinions from the US Supreme Court which mention the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right of citizens, see cases: Dred Scott v. JF Sanford 1857, U.S. v. Cruikshank, Casey v. Planned Parenthood 1992, Johnson v. Eisentrager, Poe v. Ullman, Konigsberg v. State Bar, Duncan v. Louisiana, Laird v. Tatum, Spencer v. Kemna 1998, Albright v. Oliver and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez.
There are many positions held on this debate, including the belief that gun ownership is currently overregulated, the desire to further regulate guns without banning them, and the wish to ban ownership outright. Gun rights and gun control advocates disagree upon many issues. Key disagreements include:
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the largest and best-known gun rights and gun sports advocacy group. Originally formed in 1871, after the American Civil War, to promote marksmanship skills among the general population, the NRA was mainly a shooting-sports association made up of small, local clubs. It became a powerful lobbying force after the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which made gun control a national issue. Virtually all pro-gun control groups see the NRA's positions as extremist, especially since Wayne La Pierre became the de facto policy maker at the NRA, bringing with him a more hard-line stance towards gun rights than the NRA held in the past.
In contrast, the other national gun rights groups generally take a much harder line than the NRA. These groups criticize the NRA's history of support for various gun control legislation such as: the Gun Control Act of 1968, the ban on armor-piercing projectiles and the point-of-purchase background checks (NICS), to name a few. The Second Amendment Sisters, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and Gun Owners of America are among the groups in this category.
While gun control is not strictly a partisan issue, there is more support for gun control in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. Traditionally, regional differences are greater than partisan ones on this issue. Southern and Western states are predominantly pro-gun while California, Massachusetts, and New York favor gun control. Other areas, including the Midwest, are mixed.
Some questions of regulatory policy include:
In Canada, gun control is a controversial issue, though less contentious than in the United States. There are groups who defend the possession of guns, arguing that they are necessary for hunting and farm use, especially. The pressure that led to the current gun-registration law began with the École Polytechnique Massacre in Montreal on December 6, 1989. The present law requires all firearms to be registered. In December 2002, the Auditor-General Sheila Fraser revealed that the project, originally budgeted to cost $2 million, is now expected to cost taxpayers $1 billion by 2005. In 1999 the Canadian government admitted that in the entire history of their firearms registration, not one crime has been solved and not one criminal has been caught by the registry. Additionally, it is estimated that nearly 900,000 gun owning Canadians have refused to register their firearms. These facts have proved highly embarrassing for the Canadian Government and have increased the calls for the registry's dismantlement. Currently, eight provinces are in opposition to the registry. Supporters of the firearms registry point out that it makes no sense to abandon the project at this point, as it would mean throwing away all the funds that had been spent to date.
To obtain a firearms certificate, the police must be convinced that a person has "good reason" to own a gun, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Generally speaking, gun licences are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting or work related reasons for owning a gun. Since 1946, self defence has not been considered a viable reason to own a gun.
Any person who has spent more than three years in prison is automatically banned for life from attaining a gun license. A separate firearms certificate is required for each individual firearm.
Any person holding a gun licence must comply with strict conditions, such as conditions on the strorage of firearms in a secure place. And also the recording of any firearm related purchases (such as bullets etc) which must be logged.
Failure to comply with any of these conditions can mean the forfeiture of the gun licence, which would mean that any firearms held must be handed in to the police.
The penalty for owning a gun illegally without a certificate, can be either three years imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both.
Restrictions on gun ownership began in 1903 and a licencing system was introduced in 1920, spurred on partly due to fears that the large number of guns available following World War I might be used by communists in the UK to spread USSR-style revolution into the UK by violent overthrow of the crown. Gun laws have steadily been tightened ever since.
Automatic weapons have been completely banned from private ownership since 1937. In 1988 semi-automatic guns were completely banned for private ownership following the Hungerford Massacre the previous year.
Since 1996, handguns have been completely banned for private ownership following legislation passed shortly after the Dunblane massacre in 1996 (exceptions to the ban include pistols of antique and historical interest, starting pistols and shot pistols for pest control). Even Britain's Olympic shooters fall under this ban; the British pistol shooting team is thus forced to live and train outside the country. There was relatively little resistance to the legislation, although it had opponents on both sides of the argument (those who felt it was too weak, and those who felt it went too far). According to opinion polls, around 75% of the British public favour even stricter controls on gun ownership.
According to Home Office figures released in January of 2003 [1], gun related crime has increased since the 1996 ban. However, the contribution that the ban may have made to changes in crime rates is open to debate. Figures released by the Home Office in April of 2003 show a marked decrease in overall crime including violent crime [1].
Gun control in Australia was, before 1996, largely an issue for state governments. Historically, Australia has always had tough restrictions on handguns (requiring shooters to be members of registered gun clubs, and conducting extensive police checks on pistol shooters), whilst rifles and shotguns were considerably less restricted, with the only real restrictions on fully-automatic rifles.
Two spree killings in Victoria in the 1980s (the "Hoddle Street" and "Queen Street" massacres) saw several states require the registration of all guns, restrict the availability of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Gun laws in several states, including Queensland and Tasmania, remained quite relaxed.
Things changed drastically with the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. The killing of 35 people saw an outcry around the country and gun control advocates used the popular support to push for the nationwide banning of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and more stringent requirements to obtain a gun license. Several states, most notably Queensland, objected to the changes, believing them to be too restrictive (for instance, restricting the ownership of semi-automatic small-calibre weapons that represent a relatively low threat to human life) and that gun-control advocates were exaggerating the effectiveness of the changes (because in the hands of a competent shooter a bolt-action rifle can be just as lethal as a semi-automatic). Shooters advocates also opposed the changes on this basis, as well as their belief that owning guns was a fundamental right.
Newly elected Prime Minister John Howard, already known to be an advocate of gun control, sought a national agreement to tighten laws, eventually threatening recalcitrant states with the possibility of a constitutional referendum (which, in the climate, would almost certainly have passed) to transfer power over gun laws to the Commonwealth. The American group, the National Rifle Association endeavoured to intervene in the issue by supporting gun advocates, but their involvement was not well-received by the Australian public. Eventually, agreement was reached between the states and the changes went through. The Howard Government introduced a 1% levy on income tax for a period of one year to finance the buy back semi-automatic weapons from gun owners. This scheme was subject to criticism in its implementation (there were allegations that some of the relinquished weapons ended up on sale in gun shops), but, on the whole, televised images of large numbers of rifles and shotguns being crushed by heavy machinery was well-received by the Australian public.
Laws remained static until 2002, when a pistol-owning student killed two fellow students at a Victorian university, prompting a reexamination of handgun laws (which are already quite strict). Agreement has not yet been reached on such laws.
Whilst a vocal minority has consistently opposed the tightening of gun laws in Australia, a large majority of people have been in favour of consistent tightenings. Shooter advocacy organisations have never approached the strength of the NRA in the United States.
Concern has been raised about the number of smuggled pistols reaching Australia, particularly in New South Wales.Balance of power
Gun Politics in the United States
People on both sides claim that the gun rights lobby is among the most effective and organized single-issue political groups in the United States. However, in-spite of that common perception and the best efforts of the gun rights lobby, the gun control/gun ban lobby has still managed to enact many gun control laws.
The field of political research regarding firearms suffers from the same contention as the issue of firearms itself. Almost every prominent researcher has seen their works attacked by those uncomfortable with their conclusions, and some have had their work investigated as academic fraud. Nonetheless, some influential individuals include:
Some prominent advocacy organizations in this field:
Gun Politics in Canada
Gun Politics in the UK
In the United Kingdom all guns except low-powered airguns and shotguns (which have a less strict control system), can only be obtained if a person holds a "firearms certificate" (gun licence) which can be obtained from the local police, which is renewable every three years. Gun Politics in Australia
