Running head: PHILOSOPHY 1

Gun control in the USA

Students Name

Institutional Affiliation
PHILOSOPHY 2

Gun Control in the USA

The right to the ownership of a firearm is founded on the right to self-defense. Individuals

have a right to defend themselves from anyone who wishes to destroy their lives. The right to

self-defense is related to the right to life. It sounds ridiculous to provide the right to life yet there

are no means to protect the life. The opponents of gun ownership have been against this right to

protect life from danger. The paper will look at the moral right to own a gun and whether the

Supreme Court judges make the law by offering an interpretation on the application of the

Constitution.

Moral Right to Own Guns

I hold a belief that individuals have a moral right to the ownership of a gun. However, the

rights are logically before the laws that are enacted by the state. Individuals have the right to take

part in in any activity unless there is a reason as to why they should not be allowed to do it

(Huemer, 2017). The person denying the rights has the task of proving that there is the reason for

the existence of the right. Likewise, the person seeking to have the right must proof that they are

sufficiently fit to hold custody of a gun.

Limits on the Type of Weaponry

Despite the right, I find that there should be a limit to the type of weaponry that people

should be allowed to own. Individuals should not be allowed to hold unusual weapons. The

Second Amendment has been made clear by a Supreme Court ruling on the type of weaponry

that individuals should carry. The decision barred American citizens from having unusual and

dangerous weapons that are not commonly used at that particular time. It can be interpreted to be

a general rule that governs the right to the ownership of arms. Individuals should hold the

weapons that are common to all.

PHILOSOPHY 3

Justification

The type of firearm that an individual can own is subject to the regulation under the

National Firearms Act. It specifies the extra tax stamp and regulation to own a firearm.

Individuals seeking to have special weapons need to get authorization by complying to the set

restrictions and paying the relevant duties and taxes. Individuals are allowed to own any non-

automatic firearm that has a maximum caliber of 0.5 (Findley, 2013). It should also have a barrel

of 16 inches in length (Findley, 2013). Shotguns should have a barrel length of 18 inches

(Findley, 2013).

Individuals should not be allowed to hold and possess machine guns and explosives. The

National Firearm Act gives an exclusive definition of the acceptable weapons and firearms to the

general population. The ownership of other weapons is subject to massive authorization and

oversight by the government. Individuals are allowed to hold possession of tanks, fighter jets,

and artillery. However, they cannot have functional weapons in them without conforming to the

National Firearms Act. If an individual owns a tank, they have to make sure that its main gun is

disabled and cannot function.

The regulations are meant to bar individuals from holding possession of dangerous

weapons such as atomic bombs and other explosives (Swanson, 2013). Their possession of such

weapons is subject to strict regulations making it difficult for private ownership. Uranium

enriched weapons are out of binding for private citizens while the possession of explosives will

require authorization. It is to ensure that only the government owns extensively dangerous

weapons.

Interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court

PHILOSOPHY 4

At times, the Supreme Court is called upon to offer an interpretation to the constitution.

This does not mean that the judges are making the law. In most situations, the judges apply and

interpret the law. Most of them will object that they make laws. They only serve to offer an

interpretation of the law in relation to the intention that the legislators intended it to serve. They

ensure that mischievous interpretations are not put to application

However, in reality, the law is not an algorithm that will produce a flawless production

subject to the contributions given to it. Most cases require that the law gets interpreted with a

balance of interests and consideration of policies (Supreme Court, 2017). When all this is done,

some law may come by that was not applicable in the past. It decides a particular case influential

to some cases in the future or binding to similar suits.

Justification

The Supreme Court does not convene to make or set new laws. Its task is to ensure that it

gives a verbal interpretation to the ambiguous words that are in the statute. In some situations,

the words seem to have different meanings. The defendant in this situation may try to fit it in

their context so that it serves to their advantage. In such a situation, the judges interpret the law

in a manner that will bring out its intention and purpose. It provides a remedy that suppresses the

mischief realized.

During the making of statutes, it is not possible to exhaust all the possibilities where the

statute may be applied. It is also not possible to ensure the provision of terms that are free of

ambiguity. Due to the lack of precise application, the judge supplements the written words to

give them force and life that are in line with the intended purpose of the legislature. They do not

alter the written law but provide a clear understanding of it.

PHILOSOPHY 5

If judges are let to make laws, there would be a great problem. It would imply that they

are performing similar functions as the legislative authority. It is a violation of the division of

powers that are stipulated in the constitution. Another problem would arise since judges do not

offer representation to the public. Legislative members are elected by members of the public for

a specific term.

They pass laws that are in line with the beliefs of the people they represent. Judges are

appointed under a professional contract. Allowing them to make laws would mean that there

would be many dissimilar laws that are not in line with the existing constitution. Each of the

judges would make laws that fit situation before them. It would result in a lot of inconsistency in

the laws.

Allowing judges to make laws would be giving room for various explanations to the law.

The intended purpose of the law would be lost to the numerous explanations. Different

individuals would make them serve their situation creating a greater confusion in the future. It

would lead to the loss of constitutional purpose. Contradicting clauses would have different

meanings making it difficult to understand when to apply a particular law. Therefore, judges

should not be allowed to make laws but rather offer an interpretation of the areas that need

clarification.

In conclusion, it is a moral right to own a gun in the United States. However, the

ownership has to be subject to regulations that will ensure the ownership is the right firearm. The

restrictions aim at preventing citizens from owning weaponry that is too dangerous for their

safety and those allowed them. The Supreme Court made a ruling on the ownership of weaponry.

In its decision, it did not seek to contravene the statute. The court did not make any new law. It

only gave an interpretation that was in line with the purpose of the statute.
PHILOSOPHY 6

References

Findley, B. (2013). The Best Handgun Caliber for Your Concealed Carry Weapon? Retrieved

from https://www.usacarry.com/best-handgun-caliber-concealed-carry-weapon/

Huemer, M. (2017). Is There a Right to Own a Gun?. Owl232.net. Retrieved from

http://owl232.net/guncontrol.htm

Supreme Court, (2017). Justices. Supremecourt.gov. Retrieved from

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/justices.aspx

Swanson, J. (2013). Mental illness and new gun law reforms: the promise and peril of crisis-

driven policy. Jama, 309(12), 1233-1234.