Gun Control and First Amendment

Gun Control and First Amendment Issues There are so many varied policies towards gun control here in the United States. It is in the basic fabric of the Constitution, under the Second Amendment, that Americans are allowed to own fire arms for their own protection. Yet, each state differs dramatically in terms of how that privilege should be regulated. There are a number of states which have very loose gun regulations, which allow their citizens to own a wider number of weapons and to carry concealed weapons.

For instance, Texas and Arizona, among other states allow for individuals to file for a concealed weapons permit, were firearms do not have to brandished in the open. Many of these states also allow for semi-automatic and automatic weapons to be readily available to the public. Also, in a stat like Texas, there are laws which allow citizens to be very free in shooting their weapons at others if they are on the property. This is based on self-defense, but often has very questionable circumstances.

While on the other hand, some states, for example California and New York have very strict gun regulations. In the state of California, automatic weapons are banned completely, while hand guns are only provided to those individuals that undergo background checks and wait for a period of 10 days to receive clearance to own a fire arm. These states often have stricter gun regulation because of larger urban areas that have had immense trouble with gang violence that is associated with fire arms.

When examining both looser and stricter gun laws, I must say I tend to agree more with stricter gun regulation. It is important that fire arms do not get into the wrong hands, and so regulations like background checks and waiting periods make a lot of sense to me. I am not sure about banning particular weapons, but I definitely think there should be at least some sort of background check for every firearm sold legally.

Part II There are a number of recommendations that would be made in regards to the designation of First Amendment Zones. First, these zones must be far enough away so that the protests do not disturb the events of the convention. Yet, it would be recommended not to sequester them too far, or to blockade them in with walls or other sort of barriers too much, as this has garnered harsh criticism in the past.

The zones should be in plain view of the convention, but far enough away where the attendees are not disturbed entering or leaving. It would also be highly recommended that there are designated buffer zones between the convention and any designated First Amendment Zones. Additionally, these zones must be away from any other public areas. If they are too close to public areas, like malls, they may inadvertently disrupt the flow of the public and endanger passersby.

There are also recommendations for general policy of the possible disruption of protest groups at the DRNC event. If officers were to commence in disrupting the protest groups, it would be absolutely necessary to show they were acting in accordance with the misdemeanor violation of Section 870.02 in the 2002 Florida Statutes. Essentially, this would mean that officers would have to prove more than three individuals were acting in a way to disturb the peace, rather than to peacefully assemble.

It is true, "no actual breach of peace needs to take place" (Unlawful Assembly Dispersal Order). Yet, because of the high profile nature of this event, officers must restrain themselves until it becomes absolutely clear that there are those within the crown conspiring to breach the peace. Essentially, officers would have to specify the exact actions that were committed that "indicated that a breach of the peace was the purpose of the assembly" (Unlawful Assembly Dispersal Order).

A good policy that may augment police efforts if the protests have to be disrupted would be video documentation. If the acts that are in question are caught on tape, it will be much easier to show enough evidence to defend police actions against.