An Oregon judge will decide whether a gun control law approved by voters last year is lawful under the state constitution…
Full story: Oregon judge to decide in new trial whether voter-approved gun control law is constitutional | AP News
Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice, Appalachian State University
First of all, I think the law put into place, related to having a background check as well as a safety course to obtain a gun, is one of the smartest things any state can pass. The law also bans high capacity magazines holding more than ten rounds. My question is, why would anybody be against this? Having the privilege to own a firearm is dangerous enough as it is, and now it’s a problem to take a class to use it correctly in order to own one? Everyone is getting so upset about shootings in churches, shootings in schools, shootings in grocery stores, but now it’s an issue if you have to have a clean record and a safety class to own one? I genuinely cannot wrap my head around the fact that people are against this and think this even violates a constitutional right? It’s not taking away the right to bear arms, it’s just adding a safety protocol.
Hi Anastasia, I completely agree with your sentiment. These somewhat rare but burgeoning proposed regulations are what I consider to fall under the umbrella of “common sense” laws. The Second Amendment, and all amendments, are the result of our constitution’s failure to provide clarity on specific issues. It is itself evidence of our forefather’s inability to predict all problems that may come up in the future. Clearly, today’s “arms” and thus the issues associated with them are not the same as when the Second Amendment was written. The gun laws of today should represent the realities of gun violence today.
Hi Anastasia! I also completely agree with everything you’re saying here, but in the good faith of the class, I have to play a bit into the devil’s advocate. This is not to say I agree with what I’m saying, but I believe understanding the other side of the argument is the key to provoking change. One of the biggest arguments that I’ve seen is that requiring background checks and safety courses might create barriers for law-abiding citizens who want to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms. They believe that the second amendment should be just as easy to obtain as the rights issued in the first amendment. Providing gun laws could potentially stop certain individuals from obtaining and exercising this right. They also fear that these measures could disproportionately impact lower-income individuals who may not have the resources to undergo costly training or might face delays in background checks. Take into account, black people are disproportionately affected by things such as mass incarceration, which could mean that there would be no guns in the hands of black individuals. Some would argue that they are the individuals who need guns for protection the most. Furthermore, opponents of such laws argue that they might not effectively address the root causes of gun violence, which often involve complex social and mental health issues. They believe that focusing solely on gun control measures might not adequately address the underlying problems leading to these tragic incidents. It’s important to recognize that these concerns do not necessarily negate the value of gun reform laws but highlight the need for a balanced and comprehensive approach to addressing gun violence while respecting constitutional rights.