Strive For Balance In Gun Control

On Nov. 20, the Supreme Court announced its interest in deciding the scope of the Second Amendment - the right to bear arms. Previously, the Supreme Court has often sided with the states right to legislate gun control laws and has generally interpreted the Constitution to focus on a militia rather than individual rights. This time, however, the court intends to focus on the amendment itself rather than relevant cases pertaining to it. Depending on the verdict, the outcome of this trial could either allow for heavy gun control restrictions or denounce them.

Activists from both sides reach a sort of cul-de-sac in the gun control debate. Those who believe that individual rights are more important than public safety often side with reduced gun control laws. On the other hand, those that think other individuals are unable to control their own behaviors, and therefore the law needs to influence the gun supply, would certainly side with increased government control of firearms.

Notice the difference in approach. Pro-gun activists often treat individual responsibility as a given, and fight for human rights. Meanwhile, anti-gun activists argue the capabilities of the individual, and then fight for safety. Somehow, they both managed to debate on two different planes.

In more recent history, gun violence reached a peak in 1993 after a seemingly unusual spike in 1988. Later, this spike decreased substantially to pre-1988 levels, a level of violence that has persisted until today. This strange jump in crime, followed by an equally unusual decrease, was an almost uniform change across the country. This implies that some mechanism in policy could have been the cause of the surge.

To consider this crime surge, look no further than the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. This act did several things that combine about as well as ammonia and bleach. First, the law made it illegal to transfer guns from legal owners to unauthorized persons while expanding the definition of "prohibited" citizens. Second, it shielded gun owners and dealers from submitting records of who purchased firearms or ammunition. Third, it slackened restrictions on transporting firearms between state borders. Fourth, it decreased the amounts of searches that could be performed by the government without a warrant. Finally, it outlawed all fully automatic weapons made after 1986.

So, in short, the law decreased the government's ability to enforce the law while making more laws. From the practical perspective, most rational thinkers could have assumed that the law would have the opposite effect of what was intended. After all, most crimes were already committed with handguns and the only automatic weapons used in crimes were found in Hollywood gangster films. Within two years after the law's enactment, gun violence surged, and by 1993, crime was about 50 percent more than it was in 1986.

The reasons for this increase were fairly simple to spot. The government told gun owners and dealers that it no longer needed them to report sales on ammunitions or firearms. By allowing this sort of secrecy, the government's ability to track a gun after a crime was committed was diminished. Gun owners no longer needed to disclose their purchases, making all legislation about transferring firearms impossible to adequately enforce. Guns were easier to transport across state lines, making interstate violence easier to commit. These clauses alone nearly invalidated the entire act and practically overturned the effectiveness of previous gun control legislation.

There is a balance that must be reached in gun control policy, between gun owner privacy rights and the regulation of firearm supplies. The policy of banning weapons becomes largely ineffective when the idea of individual privacy is supported. Then again, low gun regulation coupled with high privacy rights could incite even more gun violence. Further, to ban most firearms while keeping a close eye on legal gun owners will permit only outlaws to own the most dangerous of weapons. This makes heavy gun control enforcement dangerous.

Lessons learned from the past would imply that privacy rights for gun owners are dangerous, if they are too protective. But, the majority of crime today uses handguns rather than automatic weapons, mostly because it is harder to conceal an M-16 in your trousers. Yet, the only guns that seem to be banned are fully automatic weapons. It seems rather trite that the least commonly used weapon would be the most viciously despised among lawmakers. The same logic can be applied by banning pencils because people die of lead poisoning.

The Supreme Court must recognize that the extreme views for and against gun control are destructive. Therefore, a middle of the road verdict is critical. There are fair policies in gun control, but any act of banning firearms or protecting secrecy of ownership will allow for higher crime rates in the country. If history is any indicator of the future, the Supreme Court will side with the government's ability to legislate against firearms. On the bright side, if heavier gun restraints go against gun owners, it might be time for everyone to get a militia license. Hopefully, the Supreme Court knows better.