Issue Brief

Nelson 1
Evan Nelson
Upholding the Second Amendment while Protecting our People
In a current political climate filled with divisiveness and party politics, can common-
sense solutions truly be formulated? That question is asked by millions of Americans across the
country. Each day, the mainstream media focuses on our differences instead of our similarities,
our extreme positions instead of our moderate ideologies, and our hate for each other instead of
our affection. This is part of the reason why the Washington swamp can never pass legislation
that would actually benefit the people of this great nation. As for the Second Amendment, the
state and federal politicians agree with each other no more than they do for other legislation.
Democrats and Republicans have battled over this issue for decades without any true progress
being made. Gun-related violence has continued to occur at an increasingly alarming rate,
creating more and more focus around this ever-pressing issue. However, although gun violence
occurs at a high frequency, this is no cause for the government to strip all citizens of their
firearms. It is imperative that the rights endowed by the Second Amendment to the United States
Constitution are protected and upheld for all law-abiding citizens. Owning firearms should be
reserved for honest citizens who choose to live within our nation's laws. These are people who
have done all the right things when it comes to purchasing and owning their guns. There are, of
course, some people that should simply not be afforded the opportunity to own a gun. When one
of these potentially dangerous people does acquire a firearm, bad things can become of innocent
people. It is in this way that increasing the rigor of criminal and mental health background
Nelson 2
checks required to purchase a gun will promote security for the general public while upholding
the quintessential rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
When it comes to owning firearms, it is no question that Americans fully take advantage
of the opportunity. Of the top ten gun-owning countries, the United States has the greatest gun
ownership per hundred residents. In fact, it is not even a close contest. In the United States, there
are 120 guns per 100 residents i. The next closest country is Yemen, where there are only
approximately 50 guns per 100 residents ii. Although this statistic may suggest that practically
every American owns a firearm, it may be a bit misleading. In fact, the high per-capita gun
ownership statistics may be attributable to gun owners owning multiple guns instead of only one.
Collectors often amass relatively large collections instead of focusing on just one piece. The
United States is a wealthy country where people can spend their money as they please, so many
of our citizens choose to spend their earnings on firearms for sport, self-defense, and utility.
When thinking about states like Wisconsin and Montana, where many people enjoy outdoor
activities such as hunting and fishing, would it really be logical to strip these honest people of
their firearms?
No matter the case, it has become increasingly evident over the past twenty years that the
United States has a large-scale gun violence problem. Sixty-four percent of homicides in the
United States are accomplished through the use of a firearm iii. This may come as no surprise to
most people, but few would be able to predict the nature of these killings. In contrast to what
popular media would like its viewership to think, mass shootings account for only a miniscule
portion of gun-violence iv. These large-scale slaughters are certainly not the main contributor to
the high levels of gun-related homicides in the United States. Similarly, most homicides are not
carried out by large, high-powered assault rifles. The majority of killings are actually carried out
Nelson 3
by handguns v. Assault rifles only account for an extremely small portion of shooting homicides
vi
. The following infographic from the BBC depicts the types of guns used in United States
murders vii:
The main point to be taken from the previous paragraphs is that citizens must first inform
themselves of the facts before pushing for radical reform, such as an all-out ban of assault rifles.
Far too many people in this country open their mouths and air their opinions without having
factual information to support their claims. We have become a society that wishes to base policy
decisions upon feelings rather than truth. Therefore, in order to support the proposition that rigor
of background checks will keep citizens safe while upholding the Second Amendment, firm
evidence will be provided to support this proposed plan. The introduction of strong criminal and
mental health background checks will assist in curbing the spree of gun-related violence in this
country, ultimately benefitting all citizens.
First, it would be helpful to look at the United States Constitution in order to see
precisely what it says about gun ownership. The Second Amendment to the United States
Nelson 4
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” viii. When analyzing these
words, two main theories are typically derived: the ‘individual right theory’ and the ‘collective
rights theory’ ix. The ‘individual right theory’ argues that all individual citizens have the right to
bear arms, while the ‘collective rights theory’ contends that the Second Amendment is meant to
protect the militia and not the individual x. Then, which theory is the most correct? The answer
can be found through analysis of legal precedents that have been set since the publication of the
Constitution.
In 1939, the Supreme Court ruled on the side of the ‘collective rights theory’ in the case
of United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174 xi. The Court explained that the Second Amendment was
meant to ensure the effectiveness of our military and did not apply to individual firearm
ownership xii. This ruling stood as precedent for almost seventy years, until the 2008 case of
District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) xiii. In this case, the Court chose to rule in favor of the
‘individual right theory,’ striking down the handgun ban that the District of Columbia had
enforced for thirty-two years xiv. According to the Court, the Second Amendment did indeed
apply to individual gun ownership. This position would only be strengthened as the years went
by, ultimately having the Court’s decision reaffirmed in the 2010 case of McDonald v. City of
Chicago (08-1521) xv. Thus, in two landmark court cases, the Supreme Court had ruled that the
people do indeed have the individual right to bear arms.
In addition to the legal fact that an all-out gun ban would violate the constitution, it
would not actually solve the gun violence issues facing society. Bad actors will still acquire guns
no matter what the law says. These are criminals who will break laws so that they may
accomplish their ultimate, criminal goals. Taking away guns from the good people of this nation
Nelson 5
would only make matters worse. A perfect case study of where strict gun laws actually increase
the frequency of gun-related violence is the city of Chicago.
As the majority of Americans know, it is extremely dangerous to walk through the wrong
parts of Chicago. Gun-related violence taints the Chicago name, as bullets fly each night. Gang
violence, assault, and robbery all contribute to the high frequency of gun violence. As an effort
to reduce the shooting homicides in the Windy City, left-leaning politicians have decided to
impose strict gun regulations on all citizens. Did these provisions work? They did not; they
actually made matters worse. The people of Chicago are fed up with the constant violence and
have called for the resignation of their mayor, Rahm Emanuel xvi. After all, did Chicago’s
politicians really believe that banning open carry of firearms, silencers, and certain types of guns
was going to solve their city’s problems xvii?
Criminals will always break the law to get what they want; this is what they do for a
living. There are no gang members who would refrain from using a handgun with an extended
magazine and a silencer purely because the law says that it is illegal to possess such a firearm.
The homicide statistics for Chicago speak volumes and unfortunately support the idea that
criminals will never cease to break the law. In 2018 alone, there were 2,948 shooting victims in
the city of Chicago xviii. This is a statistic that represents the sheer lawlessness exhibited by a
large number of Chicago’s residents. These are people that cannot be controlled by merely
banning certain types of weapons, as they will still use them regardless of what the law says. It is
extremely unwise for the government, whether it be state or federal, to strip all citizens of their
guns, because only the bad actors will be left with the fire power.
Can the gun-related issues of cities like Chicago be completely eliminated by one piece
of legislation? Absolutely not, as no issue of such magnitude is ever completely resolved. It

Nelson 6
should be understood that the solution proposed in this piece will not completely eliminate gun-
related crime in this country. This presented solution is not one of finality and absoluteness, it is
one of compromise and common-sense. In policy, there are no decisions that result in complete
effectiveness; it is simply impossible. However, what this resolution does offer is a reconciliation
between the pro-gun and anti-gun groups, creating an all-around winning scenario. After all, the
most effective policy is often one that is bipartisan.
Today, background checks are generally standard practice when a person purchases a
gun. However, the background check itself is often not rigorous enough, as certain aspects of a
person’s history are not completely reviewed. In many states, especially those with gun laws that
are particularly lax, it is far too easy for a person with mental illness or a criminal record to
acquire firearms.
It is the proposition of this piece that a federal law regulating the rigor of background
checks should be passed through Congress and then enforced in each of the United States’ states
and territories. Although gun laws are often legislated on more of a state government level, the
current gun violence climate warrants a strong response on the behalf of the federal government.
Moderate gun purchasing regulations would indeed reduce the societal pain inflicted by bad
xix
actors while also preventing the government from gaining too much power . It is extremely
important to carefully limit the power of our government, as a government with a monopoly on
fire power will lead to tyranny, which is exactly what the Founding Fathers of the United States
were fleeing when they settled this land. The Second Amendment was intended, in part, to
defend the people from an unjust, overly powerful government. We, as a country, cannot afford
to fall under the control of an almighty government who strips us of our constitutional rights.
Nelson 7
The illegal ban of guns would serve as a stepping stone for the government to strip citizens of the
other rights they possess.
A federal law requiring a full criminal background check and assessment of mental health
is necessary for the promotion of public safety in this country. Just as it would be irrational to
ban gun ownership altogether, it would be equally irrational to allow any person to purchase a
gun no matter their mental health and criminal background. Under this plan, criminal
background checks would be facilitated through cooperation between legal gun dealers and the
FBI. This method is extremely similar to the system currently used in many states. However, this
background check would be much more intensive, taking up to a week to complete. This week-
long waiting period would ensure the thoroughness required to assess a person’s criminal
background while also allowing for a ‘cooling off’ period. A ‘cooling off’ period is already used
in nine states and the District of Columbia xx. However, the current implementation of these rest
periods is not completely effective, as citizens who live in a state that has a ‘cooling off’ period
xxi
can quickly drive to a neighboring state without a wait period to purchase a firearm . Thus, the
necessity of a nation-wide introduction of the ‘cooling off’ period becomes ever more important.
In addition to increased background checks and waiting periods, it is imperative that
mental health be assessed for potential gun owners. This can be accomplished in two parts that
would ultimately culminate in a reduction in the number of mentally ill people who acquire guns.
Under this proposed plan, when a person chooses to purchase a gun, they would be required to
answer a set of questions. These questions would be designed by psychological professionals in
conjunction with the FBI with the intention of providing an overall assessment of mental health.
These answers would then be reviewed by the FBI during the week-long ‘cooling off period.’
Additionally, the mentally ill would be prevented from purchasing firearms through the help of
Nelson 8
the private sector. This plan would mandate that psychologists and psychiatrists be legally
required to report any patient who they deem unstable to the FBI. This definition of ‘unstable’
would be only within the context of gun ownership, as the broad definition of ‘unstable’ is
extremely vague. These psychological professionals would need to ask themselves whether each
of their patients could be trusted, beyond a reasonable doubt, with the possession of a firearm.
Once professionals had reached their final conclusions, they would report patient names and
additional information to the FBI through an online process. Of course, these reports would not
infringe upon patient rights in any way, as legislation would need to carefully circumnavigate
this roadblock.
Overview of Proposed Plan to Create a Safer America

Mandate forcing legal gun dealers in all states and
territories to comply with FBI regulations for criminal
Criminal Background Checks background checks
Implementation of a week-long ‘cooling off’ period in
all states and territories
Introduction of revised mental health questionnaire
submitted to the FBI and reviewed during the ‘cooling
off’ period (in all states and territories)
Mental Health Background Checks Mandate forcing psychological professionals in all
states and territories to report any patient they deem
unsafe for gun ownership
It is undeniable that the current gun violence crisis in the United States can be
successfully resolved through the implementation of stronger criminal and mental health
background checks. This is a bipartisan plan that creates a winning situation for all citizens
regardless of party affiliation. The gun violence epidemic affects all people, and the American
Nelson 9
people deserve a solution that protects the general public while promoting a healthy respect for
the Second Amendment.
I. "America's Gun Culture in 10 Charts." BBC News. October 27, 2018. Accessed March 24, 2019.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081.
ii
"America's Gun Culture in 10 Charts." BBC News. October 27, 2018. Accessed March 24, 2019.
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
"All Amendments to the United States Constitution." University of Minnesota Human Rights Library.
Accessed March 24, 2019. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/all_amendments_usconst.htm.
ix
Strasser, Mr. Ryan. "Second Amendment." Legal Information Institute. June 05, 2017. Accessed March 24,
2019. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment.
x
xi
xii
xiii
Nelson 10
xiv
xv
xvi
Schallhorn, Kaitlyn. "Chicago Shootings Put Spotlight on Illinois Gun Laws." Fox News. Accessed March
24, 2019. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chicago-shootings-put-spotlight-on-illinois-gun-laws.
xvii
Schallhorn, Kaitlyn. "Chicago Shootings Put Spotlight on Illinois Gun Laws." Fox News. Accessed March
24, 2019. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chicago-shootings-put-spotlight-on-illinois-gun-laws.
xviii
Person, Sun-Times Wire, and Wire@suntimes.com. "Police Release 2018 Shooting Numbers." Times.
January 01, 2019. Accessed March 25, 2019. https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/police-2018-shooting-data/.
xix
"Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?" Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted in the United
States? Accessed March 25, 2019. https://gun-control.procon.org/.
xx
Krishnamoorthi, Raja. "A Cooling-off Period on Handgun Purchases Nationwide Would save Lives."
Chicagotribune.com. March 26, 2018. Accessed March 25, 2019.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-waiting-period-guns-weapons-sale-
homicides-raja-krishnamoorthi-0326-story.html.
xxi
Krishnamoorthi, Raja. "A Cooling-off Period on Handgun Purchases Nationwide Would save Lives."
Chicagotribune.com. March 26, 2018. Accessed March 25, 2019.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-waiting-period-guns-weapons-sale-
homicides-raja-krishnamoorthi-0326-story.html.

Issue Brief

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Issue Brief

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nelson 1

Upholding the Second Amendment while Protecting our People

the quintessential rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

country, ultimately benefitting all citizens.

people do indeed have the individual right to bear arms.

the frequency of gun-related violence is the city of Chicago.

was going to solve their city’s problems xvii?

of legislation? Absolutely not, as no issue of such magnitude is ever completely resolved. It

most effective policy is often one that is bipartisan.

other rights they possess.

In addition to increased background checks and waiting periods, it is imperative that

answer a set of questions. These questions would be designed by psychological professionals in

Overview of Proposed Plan to Create a Safer America

the Second Amendment.

You might also like