Safety as a Partisan Issue: The Right to Bear Arms

The Right to Bear Arms as stated in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution has been a topic of political discussion since the early 1900s. The argument that it is a constitutional right that must be upheld to ensure the liberty of United States citizens has limited any policy prescriptions to be made into law. Most bills that are introduced to congress to regulate firearms in the United States is modified to “compromise” the regulations to satisfy the more conservative, leading to little change in the regulation after the bill is passed into law.

One example of this is the 1934 National Firearms Act and Federal Firearms Act. These bills were written to include the regulation of handguns and assault rifles, only to be amended by congress to regulate “only machine guns, sawed-off rifles, and shotguns, silencers, and few other odd firearms” (Vizzard 2015). Another example of this is when the Brady Handgun Protection Act and Federal Assault Weapon Restrictions were implemented by President Bill Clinton in 1993. The bill was passed with a sunset clause of five years and was not renewed in 2004 when the national government held a conservative majority in the senate, the house, and the executive office (Vizzard 2015). The federal regulation of firearms has remained unchanged for the last twenty years (Vizzard 2015).

Though regulations have not been made at a national level, many states have implemented regulations of their own in reference to concealed carries and personal / public safety for firearms owners who may be considered a danger to themselves or others (Saadi et al., 2020). More specifically, several states including California and Oregon have implemented variations of the Gun Violence Restraining Order (“GRVO”). The GRVO allows for law enforcement or family to petition for the removal of firearms from those who may be considered a danger to themselves or to others (Saadi et al., 2020). This is a good concept on paper, but there are many factors that play into the efficiency of this policy, such as the judges interpretation of the constitution and the laws, the engagement of the firearms owner within society, and the attentiveness of family members and law enforcement to the firearms owner’s mental state.

One recurring issue is that the ownership of firearms and its constitutional right has become a partisan issue. If the conversation were less about republican, democrat, or liberal, and more about the safety of the citizens, I think that the United States may be able to come to some sort of successful compromise to regulate the use and sale of firearms.

VIZZARD, W. J. (2015). The Current and Future State of Gun Policy in the United States.    Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 104(4), 879–904.

Altaf Saadi, Kristen R. Choi, Sae Takada, & Fred J. Zimmerman. (2020). The impact of gun violence restraining order laws in the U.S. and firearm suicide among older adults: a longitudinal state-level analysis, 2012–2016. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08462-6