Open/Close Menu وکیل | مشاوره رایگان | وکالت | وکیل آنلاین

Is below me Columns on the hill On requesting a ban and restrictions on weapons such as the AR-15 since the Texas massacre. Both President Joe Biden and Former President Barack Obama has blamed the gun lobby For violence in the request for new major gun controls. However, the ban on weapons such as the AR-15 is based more on the Second Amendment than on the arms lobby. Any attempt to reach some “customary” solution depends on the desire to put an end to widespread rhetoric and confront the realities of constitutional restrictions on gun control.

While the nation is mourning the massacre of other children, we are again trying to understand the meaningless things. It is unimaginable and at the same time very familiar. Within minutes of the 19 children and two teachers at Rob Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, a familiar cycle emerged – grief accompanied by angry demands for gun reform.

President Biden used His initial remarks To condemn the gun lobby and demand gun control. The president spoke enthusiastically about the defeat, but after nearly a dozen lines, he turned to gun control policy and asked, “When are we going to stand up to the gun lobby in the name of God?” “When will we do something in the name of God that we all know needs to be done?”

This is a virtual slogan after the massacre, because politicians are committed to stopping gun violence and at the same time condemning their opponents as facilitators of the massacre.

The arms lobby, backed by millions of gun owners, is in fact a powerful political force. But it is not the arms lobby, but the constitution, that is the biggest obstacle to some of these calls for a ban or restriction on weapons. If we want to do something, we must be honest and non-partisan, a challenge that has already been proven for our leaders. Due to the right to bear arms and constitutional control, there is limited scope for legislation.

In discussing “common sense gun laws,” the president once again condemned the availability of what he collectively called “offensive weapons,” a common reference to popular models such as the AR-15. “In the name of God, what do you need an offensive weapon for, other than killing someone?” The president asked. Deer do not run in the forest with a collar vest for God’s sake. “He is just sick.”

Common sense requests for this plague of violence are welcome, but common sense also requires a shared understanding of the realities of gun ownership and gun control.

Remove the AR-15. Attempts to ban the model have already failed in the courts for constitutional reasons. Although the fight in this case continues. In 2008, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling District of Columbia v. HellerBy recognizing the Second Amendment as an individual right to bear arms. It is clear that many disagree with the interpretations of the constitution behind it هلر. However, this is now a history of control.

AR-15 The most popular weapon in America And the number is growing rapidly, with An AR-15 is purchased for every five new gun sales. This AR-15 is clearly not for armored deer. Many are purchased for personal and home protection. It is also popular for aim shooting and hunting. Many weapons Owners like the AR-15 because it is modular; Depending on the model, you can replace barrels, bolts and high-capacity magazines or add different accessories. While it does more damage than a regular handgun, it is not the most powerful weapon ever sold. Many weapons are of equal or greater caliber.

That is why laws banning or restricting the sale of the AR-15 face legal obstacles. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District Lifted the California ban For adults under 21 who buy semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15. And the Supreme Court of the country one The second amendment file is pending، New York State Rifle & Pistol Inc. v. Bruen, which probably further strengthens gun rights in this term.

After the past tragedies, Some of us have warned Due to constitutional protections, there are a limited range of options for banning weapons. There are also practical obstacles, with one An estimated 393 million weapons In the United States and It is estimated at 72 million Gun owners; Three out of ten Americans say they have guns. Actually, Gun ownership increased During the epidemic when a former Texas congressman and US Senate candidate Beto Overwork announcedHe was widely praised on the left, “Damn yes, we’ll get your AR-15.” However, even the seizure of a weapon requires its confiscation 15 million weapons.

If the president really wants a “common sense” response to this tragedy, it must be based on fact, not rhetoric. In the past, massacres have been used for political purposes, with actions that are clearly unconstitutional or largely ineffective.

When advocates call for a ban on arms sales, their challenge is not the “arms lobby” but the Second Amendment. It is noteworthy that after this recent assassination, film director and leftist activist Michael Moore went to MSNBC and demanded the cancellation of the Second Amendment. Moore said he did not want to “reduce this nickel permanently … we need really tough action here.” He insisted that we must accept that “from the beginning we are a violent people. The country was born in violence and with the genocide of indigenous peoples at gunpoint. Leaving aside the hyperbolic language, Moore is at least right about what it needs – although its repeal is unlikely to gather the 38 states needed to pass such an amendment.

Instead, we need a national dialogue, not another dialogue on arms.

There are some restrictions on guns that can go beyond the constitution, but these restrictions do not materially reduce the number of guns in society or necessarily with gun violence. There are also a number of areas that can bring real benefits in reducing such shootings, from the much-needed mental health program budget and more effective school security. Red Flag Rules.

Many of us are ready to respond to the president’s request to “turn this pain into action.” However, when he says we can do “much more,” we must be honest with the American people about the scope of the move that is constitutionally permissible to restrict an individual’s legal right. Otherwise, we will continue this tragic cycle of mass shootings followed by familiar political maneuvers.

There are 19 children and two teachers who deserve more than all of us.

Jonathan Torley is Professor of Shapiro Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

Write a comment:

*

Your email address will not be published.

logo-footer