Gun Violence Act 1968

Gun Violence Act 1968

The Federal Firearms Act in 1938 was a clear demonstration by the United States of its understanding that firearms were becoming a problematic right in American society. However, the law only focused on machine guns and other hardware used by gangs in major American cities, leaving pertinent aspects of the gun ownership debate untouched. Unfortunately, the most vulnerable stakeholder groups in the United States are in danger as the sensitive issue continues to be politicized and dragged. However, the 1968 Gun Violence Act sorted some of the issues left out by its 1938 predecessor while also reacting to the 1963 assassination of an American president. These issues present a good front from which to discuss the ongoing gun ownership and use issue, more so from the perspectives of constitutional background, election and voting processes, checks and balances, and the policies and media involvement. 

Historical and Constitutional Background

Accountability is a core responsibility of the American government because the Constitution seeks to protect the interests of all its subjects. Considering that legal gun ownership and use are enshrined in the US Constitution, the Federal government sought to establish an effective method of remaining accountable for the country's continued ownership and use. The Federal Firearms Act (FFA) of 1938 was perhaps the first intentional initiative by the Federal government to control the ownership and use of firearms in the United States. The Mulford Act of California was the second, but it responded to the rising influence of the Black Panther Movement (Hayes et al., 2020). However, these initiatives proved deficient in several core aspects, as evidenced by its focus on specific types of firearms used by gangs, and targeted minority groups that had become notorious. 

The subsequent Gun Violence Act (GCA) of 1968, signed by President Lyndon Johnson, provided more defined checks and balances surrounding gun ownership and use in the United States. Instead of focusing on certain types of firearms like its ineffective predecessor, the FFA, the GCA provided more careful consideration for firearms, munitions, and even explosives. The Federal government was reacting to the assassination of President J.F Kennedy five years earlier but provided a better platform from which to protect the rights of lawful gun owners and unarmed American citizens. However, even the GCA proved ineffective in some regards, one of which was vetting who owned these weapons, how they used them, and how they were acquired. Additionally, more than 40000 Americans are killed annually by guns (Noah, 2020). Subsequent policies and laws were needed to streamline the contentious issue of firearms in the United States, more so with the growing school and public place shooting incidents. 

The National Instant Background Check System (NICS) is one of the best initiatives created following the realization that the GCA also remained ineffective. This Federal system was centered on legal, military, intelligence, and law enforcement reports on criminal activity and firearm abuse meaning anyone in contravention with a problematic background would appear on the system (Timsina et al., 2020. In combination with the legal requirement of certain ages dependent on state legislation, gun sellers and shooting ranges or gun clubs would easily check the background of their members, gun owners, or interested buyers. Notable changes in gun abuse and ownership loophole problems reduced, but the recent politicization of the National Rifle Association may stumble some of this progress. 

Checks and Balances

The lawmaking and legislation processes surrounding gun ownership and use laws in the United States have long been reactive. Much of the current legislation and lawmaking processes ongoing in the United States remain hinged on reactions to public or national needs (Deutsch, 2005). However, the sensitivity of gun ownership and use in a country where such dangerous weapons can legally and rightfully be owned presents a difficult situation. Perhaps if the United States adopted more of a proactive stance regarding gun laws, the problems the country currently faces might subside. The FFA was created in 1938 to react to the growing criminal wave troubling most cities in the United States. Chicago, New York, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles all faced criminal gangs with machine guns forcing the government to react with a law that checked ownership and use of certain weapons such as machine guns. Similarly, the GCA was ratified in part to respond to President Kennedy's assassination in 1963 as the assassin had easy access to a gun in a restricted area where the president's motorcade would visit. 

While the checks and balances needed to stem rising gun crime in the United States would benefit from a proactive stance, one should not ignore the developments and gains accrued by existing laws and legislations regardless of their reactive nature. The GCA and its supporting systems provide the best examples of such quasi-effective gun laws, which to some extent demonstrates the checks and balances supporting American gun legislation. Combining the GCA and the NICS infrastructure alongside state-level legislation on gun ownership and age has proved partly effective in stemming gun-related crime. However, the state and Federal governments must increase their accountability and dedication to protecting the rights of citizens who rightfully own arms and those who do not. The best approach to such endeavors is a proactive legislative and lawmaking attitude that anticipates and manages expected problems. The 2004 Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, which provided law enforcement officers the right to carry concealed arms in any US jurisdiction regardless of Federal or state laws, is a good initiative. It ensures that more law enforcement officers under concealment are available within American society to curb any gun crime. 

Public Policy, Elections, and Media

The best approach to including public policy in the debate on gun control and laws or policies supporting gun ownership and use in the United States involves the public. There is a worrying trend in the recent past where the sentiments and desires of the largest stakeholder in this debate, the American citizens, were reduced to lobby group themes and public sentiments. Public policy should involve each state, creating avenues to the lowest administrative level for members of the American public to contribute to the ongoing debate (Doh & Guay, 2006). The American society in many states feels that more gun laws are needed, or at least proper augmentation of the existing ones is necessary to maintain safety in increased gun crime . 

The combination of election processes and media presents a problematic issue for the ongoing gun law development process in the United States. Some biased stakeholder groups such as the NRA have abused the media in the past to pass on skewed information about the agenda of the gun-supporting policy and lawmaking elite. Additionally, the enlistment of major stakeholder groups such as the NRA and national gun clubs into state and national politics endangers the ongoing debates on gun ownership and associated laws (Deeks, 2016). The recent observation where presidential candidates abused media and major stakeholder groups in the gun law and ownership debate for their agenda sets a dangerous precedent that will continue hurting the most vulnerable stakeholder such as students and innocent unarmed Americans. 

Voting and Election Process

The democratic process in the United States is one of the best developed and fair worldwide. It has ensured that the rights and desires of all the stakeholders in the vast, diverse country receive fair mention and consideration, thus ensuring the rights and welfare of all Americans remain enshrined in its Constitution. These considerations came under criticism in the recent move among certain conservative members of the American policy and lawmaking elite who felt that the direction in which gun laws are headed might encroach on the US Constitution's Second Amendment. Notably, these conservatives have enlisted the help of major stakeholders in the US gun owner's community, such as gun manufacturers, the NRA, and major gun clubs (Vizzard, 1999). However, the voting and election processes cannot be manipulated, as evidenced in the passing of several recent gun laws such as the Law Enforcement Officers Act of 2004, Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, and the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. These laws seem to target the rightful gun owners within the US society but were discussed at length in all US policy and lawmaking platforms before being signed into law. 

Several discussions are underway to find a compromise between the rights of lawful gun owners in the United States and the victims of potential victims of unlawful gun ownership. Certain states and communities continue to question the need for individuals to owns advanced machine guns and high-caliber rifles, especially if they are not ex-military or members of private security. Conversely, gun owners who continue to abide by gun laws and practice responsibility in their gun ownership and use demand the continued observation of their rights under the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. These opposing sides depend on the open and fair voting and election processes that the United States has relied upon for centuries to ensure all its citizens' rights are protected. 

The continued politicization of gun clubs, gun manufacturing groups, and the NRA make the political processes behind responsible gun use and effective gun laws in the US problematic. While the voting and election processes in the United States remain comparatively transparent, abusing them might compromise the discussion and policy formulation processes intent on providing all stakeholders with fair and safe gun laws (Clark 2008). The recent involvement of the NRA in former President Trump's election campaigns set a bad precedent because it created the public image of selfish gun ownership interests from a major stakeholder in the ongoing debate about gun safety and ownership. 

Conclusion

Both the FFA from 1938 and GCA from 1968 fell short of the requirements of protecting all stakeholders in the United States as a country whose citizens can rightfully own and use arms. The subsequent discussions, which were mostly reactive to unfortunate incidents such as a Presidential assassination, school shooting, and major gang crime, continue to expose the most vulnerable stakeholder in the entire gun ownership and use debates. However, ongoing discussions on pertinent aspects of the debates such as constitutional framework, checks and balances, election and policy-making exercises, and media involvement will complement. In the meantime, innocent unarmed Americans remain vulnerable. 

References

Clark, B. (2008). Federal Lawmaking and the Role of Structure in Constitutional Interpretation. California Law Review , 699. Doi: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/calr96&div=22&id=&page =

Deeks, A. (2016). Checks and balances from Abroad. University of Chicago Law Review , 65. Doi: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/uclr83&div=7&id=&page =

Deutsch, H. (2005). Public opinion’s influence on voting system technology. In Computer, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 93-95. Doi: 10.1109/MC.2005.102

Doh, P. & Guay, T. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility, Public Policy, and NGO Activism in Europe and the United States: An Institutional-Stakeholder Perspective. Journal of Management Studies , Volume 43, Issue1, pp 47-73. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00582.x

Hayes, M., Fortunato, D., & Hibbing, M. V. (2020). Race–gender bias in white Americans’ preferences for gun availability.  Journal of Public Policy , 1-17.  http://www.davidfortunato.com/jpp2020.pdf

Noah, L. (2020). Time to bite the bullet? How an emboldened FDA could take aim at the firearms industry.  Connecticut Law Review ,  53 (3), 5.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3726680

Timsina, L. R., Qiao, N., Mongalo, A. C., Vetor, A. N., Carroll, A. E., & Bell, T. M. (2020). National instant criminal background check and youth gun carrying.  Pediatrics ,  145 (1).  https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/145/1/e20191071

Vizzard, W. (1999). The Gun Control Act of 1968. St. Louis University Public Law Review , 79. Doi: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/stlpl18&div=10&id=&page =