The Texas Campus carry law came into effect in August 2016 during the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the mass shooting that happened at the University of Texas in the year 1966. The mass shooting that claimed 14 lives is considered to be the first United States mass shooting to be seen on live television. An eligibility criterion that must be met was however set after this law came into effect. The law’s eligibility criteria require that students should have gun licenses which allow them to be in possession of concealed weapons on college premises, except of areas such as chemical labs and sports arenas. Nevertheless, regardless of the reason why this legislation was passed, its effect has since invited criticism from various academics. Basing their argument on the fact that this particular law has the possibility to bring a curtailment of free expression among the students, these critics argue that the coming into effect of this law is to the disadvantage of the learners. Additionally, those opposing the law contend that students possessing guns will create an intimidating environment for those without and consequently suppressing the free exchange of ideas among learners.
Conversely, as a result of the less restrictive nature of the Texas Gun Control laws, accidents and crimes have been an ultimate consequence. For instance, in the year 2009, over 65,000 convictions were reported to the Texas State Criminal Repository for different offenses that were committed by individual citizens aged 21 years and above. Among those convicted, only an insignificant number of people were in possession of a license to carry a concealed firearm at the time of the crime.
Additionally, according to statistics given by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, between the year 2007 and the year 2009, approximately 5, 411 non-fatal accidents in the State of Texas were propagated by individuals who were illegally in possession of guns. On the other hand, in Texas, Homicides have been committed with the use of firearms. This has been closely associated with the fact that the Texas law does not include a waiting period of the time one purchases a gun and when they are allowed to possess it. For instance, between the year 1976-2005, approximately two-thirds of the entire number of homicides in Texas were committed using firearms. However, since the year 1991, which is the year which the State of Texas recorded the highest number of gun propagated homicides, the total number of firearms homicides has steadily declined. A 2014 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation of Texas measured the number of deaths in the American States which were as a result of injury by firearms per a population of 100, 000 people. The results of the study ranked Texas 30th of the 50 American States, with an average of 10.7 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants (BSJ).
The History of the Texas Gun control Policy
In the years prior to the civil war, there were no gun and firearms possession restriction policies in the State of Texas. As a matter of fact, the 1845 Texas Constitution made it an absolute right for every individual citizen to “bear arms” as a lawful self-defense and that of the State. Up until in the mid-1860s, the open carrying of rifles, shotguns and “long guns” in Texas, remained legal. It was during this time that the dueling prohibition was imposed making it the only firearm restriction law in Texas. Additionally, the first ever gun control law in the state of Texas was passed in 1866, and it banned the carrying of guns into a plantation without the owner’s consent. The reason as to why this bill was passed was so as to deprive the African-Americans of guns and any other firearms by simply disarming all black sharecroppers. Later on, in 1871, new laws against the possession of guns were imposed when the Texan Legislature outlawed the carrying of firearms outside one's premises, for the first time. This law stated that any person in the State of Texas who shall carry any pistol outside their homes should be punished by a fine of not less than $100 which is equivalent to $2,000 to the present day today. Thus, as history has it, up to the present day today, guns in the state of Texas are not primarily for security purposes but are rather instruments of liberty.
Submission No: 4 Written Oral Argument
May it please the court, my name is (INSERT NAME)
With the court’s permission, I would like to state the facts briefly.
“In regard to the second amendment of the U.S Constitution, which states that “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,” this case serves as a rebuttal of the inherent gun control laws. Your honor, the imposing of gun control laws is, therefore, an infringement of the second amendment of the United States Constitution. I therefore request that this court should overlook the gun control issue for the following two reasons.
i. Imposing the gun control laws is equivalent to absolute despotism.
ii. Laws do not apply to criminals and therefore rampage shooters will invest on soft targets which in this case are gun deprived civilians or gun free zones.
With respect to the first reason your honor, the gun control laws have become a hot button bone of contention that merits great concerns especially in the wake of numerous police brutality and racism issues. What’s worse is that the gun laws concerns have continually divided the people rather than doing the good. Thus, with the domineering raw and controversial issue of police brutality which is deeply rooted in ethnicity and racism, many American citizens, especially those of the ethnic minority, have little or no trust in the police or even the people who hold the highest positions in the government. Thus, these people consider their guns the only protection that they have from brutal police officers and consequently take a shield with the second Amendment of the Bill of Rights which allows individual citizens to keep and bear arms. As an immediate result, the ethnic minority group makes up the largest percentage of the pro-gun citizens who strongly oppose the bringing into effect the gun control laws. If the gun control laws are passed, this will not only be infringing the second amendment but will also be propagating an inferiority complex feel among innocent civilians.
Additionally, the reasons why the Second Amendment was put into place is arguable. For many reasons, there is truth that this amendment was not only put in place to address general domestic defense against burglars but was also specially amended to guarantee that at no given time can the nation be overcome by either domestic or foreign military power. Thus if individual citizens are allowed to keep and bear arms as stated in the Second Amendment, they will be exercising their rights against deposition by the government or even the militia.
To my second reason, your honor, proponents of the gun control laws argue that imposing stricter gun laws will consequently cut down crime rates in the nation. This is, however, demonstrably false; reasons being, criminals do not necessarily fear the law. More so, in many incidences of a mass shooting, there is the emergence of a clear pattern that criminal mass shooters have a personal connection to their target locations and in most cases, these usually are gun free zones. That is why you will find that it is easier for a mass shooting to happen in churches, malls, schools or any other ordinary public places but not in guarded places such as The White House or police stations. Nonetheless, this does not imply that crime rates must go down in areas of well-armed civilians. What is implied is that when gun ownership is legalized, it is always possible to pay homage to the old mantra that a “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
As it may please the court your honor, my first and second reason dully and respectfully requests that this court may find significance in the banning of the Gun Control Laws in our nation. Thankyou!
In my opinion, the Texas Gun Control laws are crafted with a mere civilian rights in mind. The reasons for this affirmation is that stricter gun control legislations only infringe the Second Amendment but do not deter crime. As a matter of fact, what has the possibility of deterring criminal acts is gun ownership. Additionally, the Supreme Court of America finds it a fundamental right for individual citizens to bear arms for self-defense and also for protection against tyrannical governance and violence.
The police cannot protect every individual citizen at all times. As a result, our founding fathers saw it right to include the right to keep and to bear arms in the American Constitution. Therefore, if guns are used by the greatest percentage of civilians who possess them as self-defense tools, then there is ultimately no reason to impose even stricter rules on gun ownership. On the other hand, the Second Amendment has the distinction of enabling the preservation of one’s life and guaranteeing every individual’s liberty. These, in my opinion, are the most fundamental rights which are secured by the Second Amendment.
Being among the most controversial issues in the United States, the heated debates on Gun Control laws revolve around the interpretation of the Second Amendment of the U.S Constitution. However, this issue not only affects the present day America as history has it that there were gun control laws which were imposed as early as the 1800s and before the civil war. Some of these laws have however been challenged in the Court of law bringing about the domineering tug of war between the pro-gun citizens, who are the opponents of the gun control laws, and the proponents of the law. The different American States, on the other hand, have set up diverse legislations regarding the same issue but have ensured that they all comply with the Federal law. Texas, for instance, is one of the states with the less restrictive gun control laws of all the 50 American States.
BJS. "Texas State Homicides." Bureau of Justice Statistics, 10 June 2016, www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=daaSearch/Homicide/State/StateHomicide.cfm.
Cramer, Clayton E. "Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters." Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters, 2014, www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=916. Accessed 12 Oct. 2016.
EBSCO Host. Overview of The Gun Control Debate, connection.ebscohost.com/us/gun-control/overview-gun-control-debate. Accessed 8 Oct. 2016.
Gurciullo, Brianna, and Viveca Novak. "Gun Rights Vs. Gun Control | OpenSecrets."OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting, June 2016, www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/guns/. Accessed 8 Oct. 2016.
Trevino, Joshua. "Founding Firearms." Texas Monthly, Apr. 2013, www.texasmonthly.com/politics/founding-firearms/. Accessed 12 Oct. 2016.
Procon.org. "Background of the Issue." Gun Control - ProCon.org, 18 Feb. 2016, gun-control.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=006436. Accessed 8 Oct. 2016.
Smith, Mitch. "Sweeping Limits on Police Use of Weapons Proposed in Chicago - The New York Times." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia, 7 Oct. 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/chicago-police-guns-force.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FGun%20Control&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection.
Head, Tom. "The Second Amendment and Gun Control." About.com News & Issues. About, Inc, 29 Apr. 2014. Web. 30 Sept. 2016. <http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/tp/Second-Amendment-Supreme-Court-Gun-Control.htm>.
•Bardwell, James O. "Descriptions of the Supreme Court Gun Cases." Descriptions of the Supreme Court Gun Cases. Constitution.org, n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2016. <http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/supreme_cases.html>.
•Gans, David H. "This Day in Supreme Court History: United States v. Cruikshank | Constitutional Accountability Center." This Day in Supreme Court History: United States v. Cruikshank | Constitutional Accountability Center. N.p., 27 Mar. 2009. Web. 30 Sept. 2016. <http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/580>.
•"United States v. Miller." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Sep 30, 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/307us174>
•"District of Columbia v. Heller." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Sep 30, 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290>
•NRA-ILA. "NRA-ILA | Citizen's Guide To Federal Firearms Laws - Summary." NRA-ILA. National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action, 4 Mar. 2004. Web. 01 Oct. 2016. <https://www.nraila.org/articles/20040324/citizen-s-guide-to-federal-firearms-law>.
Kleck, Gary. "Mass shootings in Schools, The Worst Possible Case For Gun Control." Sage Journals: American Behavioral Scientist, 4 May 2016, abs.sagepub.com/content/52/10/1447. Accessed 12 Oct. 2016.
2008 Crime in the United States, Expanded Homicide Data – Table 9." Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, September 2009.
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the SpeedyPaper website then click on link below to request removal:
America has experienced horrific events involving the use of guns, there is a major push for gun control laws to take change. People in the U.S. have been arguing for stricter gun laws, while others feel it is the person not the gun making the decisions. People just do not feel safe now a days in the general population. The U.S. Government is starting to listen to the people who desire stricter gun control laws, but the gun enthusiast believe that it will not change a thing.The enthusiast believe that a person is going to do what they what to do with their weapon, whereas, the general population believes they can limit crime by implementing stricter gun control laws.The anti-gun control group makes the argument that guns are our god given right, and it states so in the Constitution of the United States. Others believe that guns should be banned permanently. The people who want these bans can try as hard as they want, but they cannot change the laws of the Constitution.