Gun Control Bringing the United

Gun Control

Bringing the United Kingdom's gun laws to the United States: A policy case study

When President Barak Obama was a state senator in Illinois, and also during his years as a senator in the U.S. Congress, he supported mainstream efforts to limit access to firearms, such as "better enforcement of existing gun laws, tighter background checks on gun buyers and a permanent assault-weapons ban" (McCormick 2009). Despite Obama's advocacy of relatively moderate gun control policies that would enable more stringent control of illegal gun trafficking yet still allow unfettered access to handguns (provided the citizen pass a background check for mental illness and a criminal record), gun sales and sales of ammunition soared when the President was elected in 2008. In the United Kingdom, in contrast, handguns as an entire class of firearm have been banned for all citizens, although shooting for sportsmanship is still allowed. "The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead" (Handgun, 2001, BBC).

To adopt a national policy regarding firearms similar to that of the British, Obama might first be tempted to use the U.S. Constitution and the existing laws of the land as justification for his policy. Of course, despite restrictions upon First Amendment free speech rights, advocates of guns claim that the language of the Second Amendment gives unfettered access to the use of firearms. However, the actual text of the Second Amendment reads: "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." Gun control advocates argue that this suggests that such a provision merely allows for there to be an extant army, and point out that the Constitution was written before the modern system of conscription.

Yet the current U.S. Supreme Court has been hostile to radical handgun reform. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a 1976 ban on handgun possession in the District of Columbia, which has one of the highest murder rates in the nation. This landmark decision held "for the first time in the nation's history that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense" (Barnes 2008, p.1). Justice Souter, the justice currently leaving the U.S. Supreme Court to be replaced by Obama's selection of the liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor, agreed with the minority's support for Washington D.C.'s right to enact such a ban, so creating a new ideological balance on the Supreme Court regarding gun control is not a policy option for the administration with the appointment of Sotomayor. Changing the laws of the U.S. through congressional legislation is Obama's only available option.

The political obstacles the President must overcome are formidable to create more stringent gun legislation: when Obama was elected, fear spread actors the nation that all guns would be banned. Despite the fact the nation was in the depths of a recession, gun and ammunition sales "surged" (McCormick 2009). This indicates that the President must first embark upon a public-relations campaign to win the greater American public to his side, given the considerable divisions in the country between gun advocates and advocates of gun control. Obama must take two-pronged media approach. First, he must show that he does support fire arms used for legitimate sporting purposes, which does not include handguns or assault rifles. After all, Great Britain still participates in shooting as a sport in the Olympics, firearms are still used for hunting game, and the existence of the British Association of Shooting and Conservation (BASC) is manifest proof of the fact that shooting as sportsmanship is still possible in England.

At the time of the 2008 Supreme Court decision regarding the D.C. handgun ban, candidate Obama said: "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures" (Barnes 2008, p.2). Obama must make a clear distinction between legitimate use of guns and the destructive power of the guns he strives to ban through UK-style legislation. Obama must rally the support of sportsmen and sportswomen who happen to be Democrats, like New York State Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. The second prong of the Obama media campaign should be to dramatically demonstrate the human toll extracted from access to handguns, such as the 32 Chicago public schoolchildren having been killed in 2007, when Obama made one of his major pro-gun control speeches as a candidate (McCormick 2009). Appearing on the Virginia Institute of Technology campus during the commemoration ceremonies for that assassination, at the commemoration events for the anniversary of the Columbine school massacre, and making speeches at other places where handgun and assault rifle violence occurred will remind the larger public of the dangers of unfettered access to firearms. After all, it was such a shooting that encouraged the British to support a total ban on handguns.

Obama must ally himself with sympathetic advocates like Sarah Brady, the wife of the White House Press Secretary James Brady, who was wounded in the attack upon President Reagan by the assassin John Hinkley Jr. Harkening back to the Reagan Administration in his associations, if not his rhetoric, could potentially make Obama look strong despite his opposition to free and easy access to handguns, rather than weak. So will speaking in conjunction with supporters of gun control legislation from major, crime-ridden cities, like Mayor Michael Bloomberg. This Mayor is notable for his relatively conservative background as well as his tough on crime, tough on handguns policies.