1. DC and Gun Control Alex Peck Arthur Koner Period 5

2. Gun control advocates… this right doesn’t extend to military-type weapons and assault firearms The government is infringing on our civil liberties by trying to deny law-abiding citizens their absolute right to “bear arms” The 2nd Amendment and the Controversy “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.” But who is right? Safety or Liberty? What is more important?

3. DC Gun Ban: Problems (according to the NRA) • The ban on firearms for home self-defense clashes with Congress’ reason for passing the Gun Control Act (1968) • American citizens need to choose between protecting their lives and obeying the law • The District is not legally obligated to protect its people, so the citizens shouldn’t be criminalized for self-defense =

4. Congress and DC Laws • All DC budget reforms must pass through Congress. • All DC laws must sit in Congress for review periods of 30-60 days during actual sessions. • Why? – The federal government is located in DC, so it has complete control over what happens there. • The District of Columbia isn’t a state, so it doesn’t have sovereignty from congressional control

5. Crime-fighters: National or State? • The federal government has control over crime-fighting policy (US v. Miller, Gun Control Act of 1968, Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, etc.) • Gun control is not really a crime fighting issue. It is an issue of constitutionality. • Firearms can cause violent crime, which would harm the general economic well-being of an area, leading to decreased commerce. This is why Congress can make gun regulation laws. ? OR

6. Supreme Court or NRA: Who’s Right? • NRA: the 2nd Amendment give individuals the absolute right to bear arms. • Supreme Court: Only the power of states to form militias is absolutely protected under the 2nd Amendment. • Again…What’s more important? Safety or Liberty? • People should be able to protect themselves, but should it come at the expense of constitutional legitimacy?

7. You are under 18, except with the written consent of a parent or guardian. You were convicted in a federal court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than a year, unless that crime was related to business practices. You were convicted in a state court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than 2 years, unless that crime was related to business practices. You are a fugitive. You are addicted to any substance or unlawfully use a substance. You have been determined to possess mental deficiencies or have been committed to a mental institution. You are an illegal alien in the US or have a nonimmigrant visa. You were dishonorably discharged from the armed forces. You renounced your US citizenship. You have a restraining order issued by a court. You have been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor. Gun Control Act (1968) YOU CANNOT OWN A FIREARM IF:

8. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993) • Purchasers must wait up to 5 days for a background check to take place before they can buy a handgun. If it takes longer than 5 days, the purchase can take place regardless. • A previous background check could bypass the wait. • This only applied to a licensed handgun seller that is selling to a private individual. • Sales between private parties couldn’t be restricted – Congress is unable to regulate intrastate commerce. • The waiting period provision expired with the introduction of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by the FBI.

9. Printz v. United States (1997) • The provisions of the Brady Bill are unconstitutional. • At first, the rulings were negligible. • Later, this case became crucial in supporting limits on federal power and states’ rights.

10. United States v. Lopez (1995) • Alfonso Lopez carried a handgun + cartridges to his school. • Federal Government: possessing a firearm in an educational area would lead to violent crime, affecting the general economic condition of the area due to less travel in the area • Supreme Court: possessing a gun near school has a negligible effect on interstate commerce. A law banning guns near schools has no economic relation. • It reduced Congress’ authority in passing gun control laws and bolstered the case of gun rights advocates

11. Printz v. United States: a victory for states’ rights Unconstitutional for the chief law enforcement officer in each local jurisdiction to conduct background checks Gives more power to the individual and states; Congress can’t regulate law enforcement in that aspect. US v. Lopez: a victory for states’ rights It revives the role of the states in public policymaking and lessens the role of the federal government. This could affect other federal interstate regulatory laws, such as the Clean Water Act. What does all of this mean?

12. States’ Rights and Gun Rights? • If you favor both states’ rights and the right of a person to bear arms, what happens if a state passes gun control laws? • Solution - Either pick a side or stay out of the battle: You can’t be fully supportive of both sides of an argument! • The only way to avoid being a hypocrite is to choose which is most dearest to you: States’ rights or the individual?