I will always remember on April 20, 1999 the Columbine slaughter that occurred when a secondary school understudy conveyed a gun, and killed twelve understudies and an educator. There were a couple of more scenes in regards to weapon brutality and schools soon after. This made states have their hands noticeable all around on precisely what ought to be done about having the option to convey weapons on school grounds. I wonder if the staff would have been permitted to convey guns, if the shooting would have carried in transit it did? Myself being a privilege winged moderate feel it is our established appropriate to have the option to ensure ourselves. In this diary, I will talk about why I feel it is reasonable for have the option to disguise carry on grounds, versus the radical, Democrats who think the direct inverse. Everything comes down to the subsequent revision.
“The Second (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution ensures the privilege of the individuals to keep and carry weapons and was embraced on December 15, 1791, as a major aspect of the initial ten revisions contained in the Bill of Rights”(Wikipedia, 2017). At the point when the subsequent revision was made, it should protect us from for the most part the Government. Today, there is more firearm brutality than any time in recent memory. From a republican point of view it states, “We guard the protected appropriate to remain battle ready. We restrict government permitting of honest weapon proprietors and national firearm enrollment as an infringement of the Second Amendment and an attack of security of legitimate residents. Through projects like Project Exile, we will consider hoodlums separately responsible for their activities by solid requirement of government and state gun laws, particularly when firearms are utilized in fierce or sedate related wrongdoings” (N.A.,2000). It is difficult for me to fold my head over the administration making it increasingly hard for individuals to possess firearms, would diminish the wrongdoing, and viciousness related with weapons. Indeed, the vast majority of the violations related with firearms, the culprits have purchased unlawfully. Who’s to state that still won’t occur and for what reason would you make it harder for a well behaved resident to secure his or hers friends and family, and self so far as that is concerned. The Democrats have an altogether different sentiment. For example, when Democratic chosen one Hillary Clinton in the last political race, was sure about her position about the subsequent revision and needed to delete everything together. As indicated by Sullum, J. (2016), “Clinton needs to discretionarily confine the sorts of weapons Americans can lawfully purchase, make another money related danger to the business that gives the way to outfitted self-protection, remove individuals’ sacred rights without fair treatment, and square firearm buys by cannabis buyers, individuals with peaceful crime records, and any individual who was ever persuasively treated for self-destructive driving forces. These are not approaches that somebody who pays attention to the Second Amendment would support.” The perspectives from the Right and Left on the subsequent alteration are direct inverse.
I feel that I ought to reserve each privilege to have the option to buy a gun to ensure myself, family, and individual property. If somebody somehow happened to break into my home right now, I wouldn’t need to stress over holding up till the cops appeared. I would have the option to bring the criminal to an abrupt halt, and keep my family protected from further hurt.
Going into the halfway point of our class, we get to focus our attention to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, The Right to Bear Arms. This amendment is certainly relevant in our society today, and the question of whether or not citizens should or should not have the right to bear arms is challenged quite frequently it seems. Gun violence is very prevalent in our world today, especially so in the US. It is becoming an all too familiar horror story that someone has made a decision to take the life/lives of innocent people. Both gun advocates and advocates for gun control regulation cannot deny that there is a serious issue with the ease in which firearms are obtained. While I believe that we have the definite right to bear arms, I believe that right should come with restrictions, patrolled by the state(s) and federal laws.
Given our scenario this week, we have Todd Patterson, a husband and father, who by all intents and purposes seems to be a quality member of society. Todd is a current teacher of social studies, which leads me to believe that Todd has a college degree of some type in order to maintain his employment. Since Todd is an adoptive parent, he is familiar with background checks of any prior criminal history. Given that Todd is the adoptive father of his Ugandan born daughter, it appears there were no issues with Todd’s background check. There also does not appear to be any issues with Todd’s current firearm ownership status with weapons considered to be non-destructive in nature. If there was an issue, I am not sure how Todd would have obtained the weapons, that is unless he purchased them at a gun show or illegally. My point with all of this is that on its face, Todd Patterson seems fit to own firearms and that he poses no risk of committing any criminal offense with his weapons. This is something that the state should be taking into consideration when it comes to reviewing registration applications for automatic weapons. I’m not so sure this is what it happening in this scenario.
Todd’s failure to hand over his automatic weapons has some serious consequences. Even though it may seem unfair that Todd’s application was denied, he still should have complied with the state’s request to hand over the weapons. Todd has only complicated the situation by not complying, and I believe that he may be jeopardizing his ability to keep his other weapons if he is in fact convicted in court. I do believe that Todd has valid arguments that his Second Amendment rights were violated in this instance. I think a court of law would easily see that same validity.
Todd’s only apparent checkered past involved a six-month stint at a mental institution when he was 17 years old. Todd’s parents were killed in an accident that left him alone and quite traumatized. It would take enormous strength to be able to hold your life together after such a terrible strategy, especially so if you were only 17 years old. While Todd may have had some mental health issues at this point in time of his life, those issues seemingly have not stayed with him over the years. You have to look at what Todd has accomplished since this specific point in his life. I do not believe the state has afforded Todd with a fair determination in registering his automatic weapons. Todd was 17 years old at the time he was institutionalized, should those records be taken into consideration given that Todd was a minor? I think not. Also, even if the state found evidence that at some point Todd suffered from mental illness, wouldn’t there be documentation in his medical file from his doctor stating that Todd no longer needs to be institutionalized? That should count for something here. Plus we have no repeat history of mental health issues with Todd. Todd is, to me a least what you would think is the poster-child for responsible gun ownership. It doesn’t matter why Todd owns two automatic weapons, he has the right to purchase them if they are made available. Todd also has the right to disagree and object with the state’s decision to reject his application.
In Todd’s legal defense, I would think it be wise if his legal team did their research and looked into Varneyland law on firearm ownership and requirements. If Varneyland was located in the state of Illinois, Todd’s application for registration would have been approved as Illinois law states that “A person commits the offense of unlawful possession of firearms when he has been a patient in a mental institution within the past 5 years…” This state law does conflict with 18 U.S. Code § 922 (d), which prohibits firearm ownership to anyone that has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution. Even though that conflict exists, Todd’s past mental conditions are irrelevant here. I believe that Todd’s main defense of his rights comes from past case law in McDonald v. Chicago, and District of Columbia v. Heller.
It simply should not matter what type of firearm we are discussing. A gun is a gun in simplistic comparisons. If used in a certain manner, they can inflict death, regardless of the manufacture and make. In the McDonald case, the Court reasoned that the right to bear arms is fundamental, applying The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as an extension to the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposed like self-defense. While the ruling here does not diminish certain gun restrictions and the ban of convicted criminals or the mentally ill, the defense’s argument that Todd has some form of mental illness would be a strong and valid argument. How long must the statute of limitations be on mental illness and gun ownership? To me at least, there’s a clear line that Todd is responsible and shows no signs of mental illness. The death of his parents is perhaps the main correlation to his illness at the time, which was 16 years ago. Todd seems to have effectively addressed his issues, otherwise I cannot see him making the commitment to graduate from college, commit to his spouse, and to complete the rigors that comes with becoming a foster parent. Gun control in this instance fails Todd and people in similar situations.
In regards to District of Columbia v. Heller, we see that the Court rules that the Second Amendment provides the guarantee of an individual’s right to possess unregistered weapons, clearly violating Todd’s rights to unregistered ownership of his two automatic weapons.
While Todd’s past should play a factor in his ability to own guns, there are limitations that the states must abide by. Setting a reasonable time limit on mental institutionalizations to 5 years seems pretty adequate along with the other provisions of the laws. A comprehensive review of Todd’s application should have taken place instead of flatly being rejected. The state has opened up itself to constitutional violations for having failed to approve Todd’s registration. I think that Todd has sufficient state statue and Supreme Court case law evidence to support his case and that ultimately he would prevail in a court of law.
 Illinois Statute 720 Ill. Rev. Stat. §5/24-3.1
 18 U.S. Code § 922(d).
 JUSTIA: US Supreme Court, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/#tab-opinion-1963369, (last visited 9/25/2019).
 JUSTIA: US Supreme Court, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290, (lst visited 9/25/2019).
I do think Todd’s argument has merit. I believe Todd’s 2nd amendment rights were violated with this case due to the length of time that had passed since he had that mental breakdown – which was in response to his parents dying. That could have been considered a part of the grieving process with the major depression. Rather than demand he turn in all of his automatic weapons, there should have been a request to update his mental health record to ensure he was no longer a risk. One of the big issues with the argument over 2nd amendment rights is that both sides see their argument as ‘common sense arguments’, meaning the opposing argument is simply invalid (Tushnet, 2007).
Columbia v. Heller was the first time a supreme court had ever decided on a violation of the 2nd amendment (Vernick, J. S., Rutkow, L., Webster, D. W., & Teret, S. P., 2011). It was decided the Constitution gives individuals a right to possess handguns in their home for personal protection and home defense (Vernick, J. S., Rutkow, L., Webster, D. W., & Teret, S. P., 2011). However, this does not reference automatic weapons. The home protection right could go towards arguing Todd’s case vaguely but the more important piece is the mental health status, in my opinion. The area has recently been devastated with a school shooting involving a mentally ill individual so naturally, every one is in an uproar to get more weapon control and register everything. My only issue with the weapon control is that whether it be a common criminal or a domestic terrorist case, not everyone has mental health records that would portray an issue. Of course, one could argue that that is an extreme as well when faced with the amount of school shootings and gun deaths, whether they be accidental or deliberate.
In United States v. Miller, 2 individuals were in possession of sawed off shot guns and it was deemed not protected under the 2nd amendment, which I understand to be the right decision (Vernick, J. S., Rutkow, L., Webster, D. W., & Teret, S. P., 2011). With the shot guns having been sawed off, dangerously I might add, I would say the weapons were not primarily used for home protection.
Tushnet, M. V. (2007). Out of Range : Why the Constitution Can’t End the Battle Over Guns. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip&db=nlebk&AN=205544&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Vernick, J. S., Rutkow, L., Webster, D. W., & Teret, S. P. (2011). Changing the constitutional landscape for firearms: The US supreme court’s recent second amendment decisions. American Journal of Public Health, 101(11), 2021-2026. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy1.apus.edu/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300200