These are safety rules and rules that are meant to keep guns away from children and convicted felons as well as other irresponsible people who could possibly injure or kill another person. All legitimate gun owners understand that guns kill and there should be some form of gun control in order to prevent accidents from happening. Accidents are not the only reason for supporting gun control.
Another reason is to prevent criminals, felons, the mentally ill, as well as abusers of wives or husbands from having access to weapons that can be used to intimidate or injure another person. Better law enforcement of the current gun laws should be used by the law enforcement agencies. If better law enforcement of current gun laws were done then that would show that law abiding people do not need to feel that they need guns for self-protection.
Extreme gun laws as well as gun confiscation are not the answer to the gun problems facing us Better enforcement of present laws are. On June, 28, 2010 The United States Supreme Court handed down a decision by a vote of 5 to 4 that affirmed gun ownership as a fundamental right of the American people. Prior to this decision the cities and states felt that it was their rights and responsibility to be able to control who or what kind of guns the people could own. As in many instances the states only read part of the Constitution, and that part was the part that would.
In 2004, domestic diva Martha Stewart was convicted of obstruction of justice, making false statements, and two counts of conspiracy in connection with dubious stock transactions. Although sentenced to only five months in jail plus a period of supervised release, she risked a much harsher punishment. Because she was convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison, federal law bans her from having any gun. n1) Her ban is for life, unless the Attorney General lifts the disabilitya decision in his discretion and that he effectively cannot make because Congress regularly bars the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives from spending any money to review petitions to lift firearms disabilities. ( n2) Is the public safer now that Martha Stewart is completely and permanently disarmed?
More to the point, how could such a ban be constitutional, now that the Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller,( n3) not only has confirmed that the Second Amendment secures a personal right to keep and bear arms, but also has emphasized its historical tie to the right of self-defense? The Court, in dicta, told everyone to move along. It asserted, without citation, that prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons were longstanding and declared them presumptively lawful. ( n4)
The D. C. Circuit decision below, which Heller affirmed, similarly offered that bans on felons keeping and bearing arms promote the governments interest in public safety consistent with our common law tradition and do not impair the core conduct upon which the right was premised, primarily self-defense. ( n5) But it cited only Supreme Court dicta from 1980,( n6) which Heller subsequently disparaged. ( n7)
The Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson,( n8) the first decision of a circuit court to adopt an individual-right interpretation, stated that a ban on possession by felons is in no way inconsistent with an individual rights model, citing an older Supreme Court dictum stating that bans on carrying concealed weapons do not violate the Second Amendment and a handful of law review articles contending that Founding-era England and America excluded felons from the right to have arms. n9) Emersons holding, like Hellers, did not involve disarming a felon, although the court did uphold a related federal disability applied to a man subject to a restraining order that included a finding that he was a threat to his wifes physical safety.