“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.”
Second Amendment, United States Constitution
As the years go on, rates of gun violence in the U.S. steadily increase and the threat of mass shootings becomes more and more real to students across the country. According to the Gun Violence Archive, the number of mass shootings in the U.S. increased by almost 25% between 2018 and 2019 and increased by almost 50% between 2019 and 2020, with 610 mass shootings recorded in this past year. In response to the annual rise in violence and shootings in Boulder, Colo. and Atlanta earlier this year, the Biden-Harris Administration announced initial executive actions to combat the “public health epidemic” that is gun violence in the U.S.
These six proposed actions specifically target several key issues that have led to current rates of gun violence:
- Stopping the spread of untraceable “ghost guns”.
- Labelling pistol stabilizers and subjecting the modified weapons to the same laws regarding short-barrel rifles.
- Writing “Red Flag” legislation that would allow courts to temporarily barr individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others from accessing firearms.
- Investing in community violence interventions that work to train and create jobs for those in at-risk communities.
- Creating an annual report on gun trafficking.
- Nominating a director for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which has been without a director since 2015.
The third of these actions has sparked debate between opposing political groups about whether or not Red Flag legislation could be an infringement on individuals’ right to bear arms, and many Republican politicians, including Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Texas governor Greg Abbot, have made statements announcing that they disagree with the laws. In an interview with Fox News Sunday, on April 11, Abbot stated “Texans and Americans know they need their Second Amendment rights to defend themselves at a time when the United States government and other governments are doing less to defend our fellow Americans, and that is exactly why we should not have any further limitations of our Second Amendment rights.”, but is the Biden Administration’s executive action truly infringing on or limiting Second Amendment rights?
Red Flag laws would allow family members and law enforcement to “petition for a court order” that would then only be granted if it were determined in a court of law that the individual currently poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is very similar to a clause in the Gun Control Act of 1968, which prohibits felons, drug addicts, and those otherwise found to be mentally unstable from purchasing firearms. It was determined that this act did not violate the Second Amendment due to the crucial term “well regulated Militia”. Someone who has previously shown a disregard for human life or is not mentally equipped to handle a firearm is not capable of being well regulated and should not be entrusted with the power to take lives, whether that life be their own or someone else’s. For drug addicts and those deemed mentally incapable, that prohibition no longer applies once they are demonstrably stable.
The proposed Red Flag law would follow the same principles as the Gun Control Act of 1968, except now the family and law enforcement who encounter unstable individuals would have a legal means of investigating and temporarily disarming them if, in a court of law, they are determined to pose a danger to themselves or others. It is not stated in the law that these bans would be permanent and, once the individual is demonstrably stable — once they are capable of being well-regulated by themselves — they will once again be allowed to own and carry guns. The Red Flag law does not infringe upon Second Amendment rights, but instead protects both people unequipped to own guns and everyone around them until they are mentally stable. The legislation is an action taken by the U.S. government to defend our fellow Americans.
But if the executive action does not infringe on Second Amendment rights and does not suggest that responsible gun owners will be affected in any way, why might people like Abbott be so intent on counteracting the laws?
The first and most simple answer is money. Many Republican politicians and a few Democratic politicians receive frequent and often large donations from the National Rifle Association (NRA), which incentivize them to support what is in the NRA’s best interest over the interests of the American people, the majority of whom are in favor of more strict gun control laws. The NRA makes the bulk of their money through donations from corporations within the gun industry — an industry that directly profits from having lower regulations on firearms — and this want for fewer gun control laws is reflected in the actions and policies of the politicians they support. Politicians like Abbott, who was publicly endorsed by the NRA.
However, politicians’ monetary gain does not account for the beliefs and actions of citizens who oppose the Biden Administration’s executive action. Regular, everyday people are not making money from the NRA and, according to a 2017 study by Pew Research Center, the NRA is not representative of the majority of U.S. gun owners, so it would be wrong to assume the values of the NRA are solely responsible for our historic lack of action on gun safety and regulation policies. Most gun owners who oppose more gun control laws do so because they do not trust the government to protect them and see any gun regulation as a slippery slope to more drastic and unconstitutional regulations. This distrust has rooted itself deep into American gun culture and is largely responsible for the longstanding stalemate we seem to be trapped in with regards to gun control policies. But our fear and inaction does nothing to quiet the minds of those who seek to hurt others in our country, and so the rates of gun deaths and mass shootings will continue to increase as long as we are unwilling to take steps to fix our flawed system.
The actions taken by the Biden administration are the first major gun control policies implemented in the U.S. since 1994 — five years before the Columbine shooting. As time goes on and we are able to see the effects of those six actions, it is likely that amendments will be added to the policies, just as with any law. But we should not let our fear of needing to amend these laws keep us from implementing them in the first place. We are capable of learning and fixing whatever mistakes may be discovered, but inaction will only lead to more deaths – deaths that may very well be preventable with the right legislation. Our current laws are not doing enough to protect us and decrease the amount of gun violence in our country, but this executive action marks a change in the lack of action we have seen thus far from our government. It is a step in the right direction for all Americans and hopefully, by this time next year, we will be able to see a decline in the number of lives lost annually to gun violence.