Gun Control My VT View

According to statistics from a survey in 1994 people that used a firearm in self defense about 15% of them said that if they hadn’t used the gun in self defense they’re almost certain they would have died. There is no way to argue that guns can save lives but people would say they can take lives too, but if you were to ban firearms would you really be stopping the criminals? If it’s a crime to own a gun then how would that stop someone who doesn’t mind breaking laws? You would just be leaving civilians with no means to defend them self without getting close to the attacker. I’ve heard so many times that why take the rights from a law abiding citizen you can’t stop the criminals because criminals don’t follow the laws.

During my interviews with people that range from lobbyist all the way to competitive shooter. All of them had one thing that they always believed in and that’s that criminals don’t follow the laws that’s why they are criminals. Adam Nielsen a competitive shooter said that if you were to simply ban guns the only people you will be taking them from are the law abiding citizens because criminals don’t care if it’s illegal they will find a way to get them if they want them. All of the interviewees seemed to agree that guns are a tool that can be a danger but if handled properly they can be a powerful tool to defend one’s self.

The view on guns being a tool is not only the view of the people that I interviewed but also in the court case of Heller vs. DC Heller was applying for a permit to carry a handgun. Being a police officer he had the ability to handle a firearm safely, but still the request of a permit he was denied and then went to court because he felt this was against his 2^nd amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Heller and around a year later another case was open to argue if this right applied to the states as well and that case was also favored towards McDonald who wanted the right to carry a firearm. People fight what is already written in the constitution and would cause great controversy if changed. Each side is fighting for what they think is right but one side has the 2^nd amendment on their side to give them the right to keep and bear arms the opposing side to this argument has no reason to fight our rights but they still try.

So far I’ve talked about each side some but a little more you should know the NRA (National Rifle Association) is for guns while the Brady Campaign is against guns. Each has their own reasons but let me just throw out some facts that may even sway strong anti-gun users. People worry about guns being used to hurt others but every 13 seconds someone uses a gun in self defense and 91% of these cases the person being threatened by the defender wasn’t injured. In 2008 about 11,000 people were murdered with a firearm you may find this to be against my point but about 48,700 people were saved by use of a firearm in 2010. So why again would we take away what is one of the most powerful tools that saves so many lives.

By now you’re either looking at this and thinking that maybe he is right and that guns really can help people or you think that I have too much bias and that that is ruling the stats I put up. Well think of this put up whatever you want and just think if we take away guns for citizens then criminals will find a way to get guns and we can move that number of people saved by guns over to the number of people murdered. You’ve seen that people from Lobbyist to competitive shooter and even the Supreme Court have said that no matter what we The People have the right to keep and bear arms.

Interview

I interviewed a Hinesburg police officer Brian Fox. His view on gun control was that of a typical Vermonter but he was more informed and knows the laws. He feels that "Vermont is very liberal with it's gun laws.". When asked about things such as needs for trigger locks in other areas and he said that for things like unloaded weapons he feels that with people that don't really have a understanding of weapons could be in danger because that can't handle a weapon safely. He said something that during this project I've heard a lot if you restrict gun laws the criminal if he really wants the gun he can find a way to get it.

During the process of setting up a interview I found that not many people stay in one place for too long. I had trouble finding someone in the first place but after I had found a person the person I found was a hard working individual and had a very busy schedule that didn't quite match up with mine. So in the end because of time limitations I had to use the interview that was so helpfully set  up by our teachers to dig some of the students out of the hole we had fallen into. Otherwise I felt the process was quite entertaining I felt it was a lot of fun to here what someone with a different perspective has on the subject I had been working on for weeks. In the end I felt this was a experience that will really benefit me in the future.

Stake Holders

     In the US constitution the second amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is the right that the people who are working for the right for the people to carry firearms are saying. They feel that if they are a law abiding citizen that they should be able to carry and use a firearm for sport and self defense. This group of people think that it's not really a gun who kills the person it's the actions of the person holding the gun. This is a group of people who strongly believe that if they live in a area that permits firearms and they are a law abiding citizen they should have the rights taken away because of other people's actions.

     When the gun was designed there was one soul purpose to harm other people or things. This side of the debate strongly believes that guns are simply barbaric tools of destruction. Guns are simply a tool to kill even if you are shooting a burglar in self defense is any human life worth a simple item that can be replaced. But not only do firearms allow people to kill other people it allows people to kill themselves. When someone attempts to suicide with a firearm the chance of survival is so slim they will never get a chance to see that how much the attempt really affects the people who love them. So in the end this is simply a group that believes that though in areas it may be legal to own a firearm doesn't change the way that people could use them.

Panel Day Reflection

     During panel day we had three speakers Officer Dempsey, Adam Nielsen and Evan Hughes all of these speakers had prepared for questions and were there to make sure we were able to learn from the experience. Officer Dempsey gave us a view on the second amendment from the perspective of the law and was able to help us understand how the law related to the second amendment. Adam Nielsen a competitive shooter talked about some of his experiences with the way gun laws are structured differently  from state to state. Evan Hughes spoke in a very professional manner because of his experience as a lobbyist for our second amendment rights. Evan spoke about how there were many "facts" out there that may be inaccurate and slide the statistics toward one side of the argument. But over all the speakers provided a lot of information that you wouldn't realize are facts that can really bring your argument to a new level. I think that the information they provided was accurate and will benefit us in the long run.

Interviews

"Russ Baker"(BSA Instructor)
Request sent in search of certified BSA shooting sports instructor.

"Parros"(Gun shop and Police Supplies)
Request sent no response received.

"Officer Brian Fox"(Hinesburg Police Officer)
Request sent for a group of students by teacher.

Court Cases

Heller vs D.C.
 Summary



     In the case of Heller vs DC Heller filed a lawsuit because Heller on the job as a police officer was able to carry a handgun and filed for a license to have a handgun in his home. When the license was denied he filed a lawsuit against the District of Columbia. During this lawsuit he said that his 2nd amendment right was being infringed. The majority of the debate during the case was simply over the wording of the 2nd amendment how much the two clauses are connected or whether they are connected at all. The court ruled in favor of Heller. After the case Heller was successful and overturned the handgun control law in the District of Columbia.


McDonald vs Chicago
Summary



In the case of McDonald vs Chicago several residents of Chicago brought forth the issue the inability to have handguns in their home. This issue was already addressed but since it was addressed in the District of Columbia so therefore the states were not affected by this case. During this case it had already been determined in the Heller vs DC case that the second amendment gave the people the right to bear arms.In this case McDonald argued that the 14th amendment made the 2nd amendment applicable to the states and won. So in the end of both of these cases it shows that the people have the right to keep and bear arms within the US.

Current Interpretation

     Today there is much controversy over gun control whether people should have where people should have them many things are still foggy but there is some rules set in stone.Some people are not eligible to own, receive, or transport fire arms, a majority of the people are restricted because of crimes that they have committed. But just to name a few more illegal aliens, people diagnosed with any major mental conditions, and people that have been dishonorable discharged from the armed forces. These are simply the restrictions on the people that can purchase and own weapons. There are also limitations on age such as only citizens of 18 or older can buy long guns and only citizens of 21 or older can buy handguns. But there is also a restriction on places you can carry a firearm for example on school properties you cannot carry a firearm with the common carry laws in the state. The most important law to do with the distribution of guns is that a person can only sell a firearm to another person in a interstate transaction where both people are of the correct age to carry the fire arm. The laws may seem quite restrictive but are actually very lenient and still keep the people safe.


Source(s):
http://www.nraila.org/gunlaws/federal/read.aspx?id=60

Constitutional Connection

"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 second amendment states that "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms. In this case the word arms relates to firearms, so this means that "the people" will not have their right to bear firearms infringed or taken away. The second amendment is the only section of the constitution that directly applies to the people rights to firearms. The only other area of law that can change your right to bear arms is state laws, even though states can restrict your rights they cannot completely remove your rights and you are still able to acquire a firearm but the process can become much more complicated from state to state. So therefore there is no place in the U.S that it's impossible to gain the ability to carry a firearm.

Issue Explanation

     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.". If the clauses were split that the people have the rights to bear arms, but if you take the clauses as one statement it can be argued that the right should only apply to the militia and not simply the people. So therefore even simply the right for people to bear arms is a place for dispute. This is simply skimming the surface of what is disputed today people debate whether this amendment covers all firearms or does it only apply to some and does it give reference to present day weapons.

     If the second amendment does not give the right to bear arms though in all situations for example in Heller vs. District of Columbia, Heller opposed federal law and fought for his right to bear arms though the state or in this case district which he lived in the law said that he couldn't bear a handgun. Though the laws said he couldn't he went to court with it and won. Therefore even though the second amendment may say you have the right to bear arms you may not have the right to have certain weapons and use certain weapons in certain states.

Trial Search Intro

      My trial search topic has to do with the second amendment. The second amendment gives each US citizen the right to "bear arms". During this topic I will be expanding on the knowledge I already have of this topic. For this topic I don't know too much general information and joined this topic because of this. Mostly the knowledge I have is my rights to firearms as a resident of Vermont. But in the case of court cases I have never looked at cases to try to see what laws on gun control should be like around the US.

      During this project I will simply be learning about this topic and I feel that I have no questions that pertain to my topic. Although I do have a few questions such as how long will our editorial and What will we do for the last part of this project is it the editorial? But chances are high that I can simply read through my packet to find the answers to most of these questions so for me this paragraph feels to be simply a way for me to fill up a little more of this page.