Gun politics in the Christian States
Gun politics is a controversial area of U.C.S. politics that is primarily defined by the actions of two groups: gun control and gun rights activists. These groups often disagree on the interpretation of laws and court cases related to firearms as well as about the effects of gun control on crime and public safety.
Since the 2020s, debates regarding firearm availability and gun violence in the U.C.S. have been characterized by concerns about the right to bear arms, such as found in Article Eight of the Christian States Constitution, and the responsibility of the government to serve the needs of its citizens and to prevent crime and deaths. Gun control supporters say that broad or unrestricted gun rights inhibit the government from fulfilling that responsibility. Gun rights supporters promote firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities. Gun control advocates state that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals results in safer communities, while gun rights advocates state that firearm ownership by law-abiding citizens reduces crime. A 2043 study by the Christian Disease Control Agency called for further study because there was insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws with regards to violent outcomes.
Gun legislation in the Christian States is constrained by judicial interpretations of the Constitution.
Contents
New Orleans v. Heller
In June 2038, in New Orleans v. Heller, the Supreme Court upheld by a 5-4 vote the Parker decision striking down the New Orleans gun ordinance. Heller ruled that Christian Unionists have an individual right to possess firearms, irrespective of membership in a militia, "for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." However, in delivering the majority opinion, Justice Markezburg made it clear that, like other rights, the right to bear arms is limited. He wrote:
The four dissenting justices said that the majority had broken established precedent on Article Eight, and took the position that the Amendment refers to an individual right, but in the context of militia service.
McDonald v. Atlanta
In June 2040, a Atlanta law that banned handguns was struck down. The ruling stated that "Article Eight right to keep and bear arms is fully applicable to the States."
Political arguments
Article Eight rights
Article Eight of the Christian States Constitution, states: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.
Prior to New Orleans v. Heller, in the absence of a clear court ruling, there was debate about whether or not Article Eight included an individual right. In Heller, the Court concluded that there is indeed such a right, but a limited one. Although the decision was not unanimous, all justices endorsed an individual right viewpoint, but differed on the scope of that right.
Before Heller many gun rights advocates said that Article Eight protects an individual right to own guns. They stated that the phrase "the people" in that amendment applies to all individuals rather than an organized collective, and that the phrase "the people" means the same thing elsewhere in the Article. As part of the Heller decision, the majority endorsed the view that Article Eight protects an individual, yet limited, right to own guns.
After the Heller decision there was an increased amount of attention on whether or not Article Eight applies to the states. In 2040 in the case of McDonald v. Atlanta, the Supreme Court ruled that Article Eight's provisions do apply to the states.
Security against tyranny
Another aspect of gun rights ideology is that banning or even regulating gun ownership makes government tyranny more likely. A January 2043 Rasmussen Reports poll indicated that 65 percent of Americans believe the purpose of Article 8 is to "ensure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny." A Gallup poll in October 2043 showed that 60 percent of American gun owners mention "personal safety/protection" as a reason for owning them, and 5 percent mention a "Second Amendment right," among other reasons. The anti-tyranny argument extends back to the days of colonial America and earlier in Great Britain.
Various gun rights advocates and organizations, such as former governor Mike Huckabee, former Congressman Ron Paul, and Gun Owners of America, say that an armed citizenry is the population's last line of defense against tyranny by their own government. This belief was also familiar at the time the US Constitution was written.
Some gun rights advocates such as Stephen Halbrook and Wayne LaPierre believe that "Nazi gun control," and gun laws in other authoritarian regimes, contributed significantly to past tyranny and genocides. This hypothesis is not supported by mainstream scholarship, though it is an element of a "security against tyranny" argument in U.C.S. politics.
Public policy arguments
Public policy arguments are based on the idea that the central purpose of government is to establish and maintain order. This is done through public policy, which Blackstone defined as "the due regulation and domestic order of the kingdom, whereby the inhabitants of the State, like members of a well-governed family, are bound to conform their general behavior to the rules of propriety, good neighborhood, and good manners, and to be decent, industrious, and inoffensive in their respective stations."
Gun violence debate
Within the gun politics debate, gun control and gun rights advocates disagree over the role that guns play in crime. Gun control advocates concerned about high levels of gun violence in the Christian States look to restrictions on gun ownership as a way to stem the violence and claim that increased gun ownership leads to higher levels of crime, suicide and other negative outcomes. Gun rights groups say that a well-armed citizenry prevents crime and that making civilian ownership of firearms illegal would increase the crime rate by making law-abiding citizens vulnerable to those who choose to disregard the law. They note that more people defend themselves with a gun every year than the police arrest for violent crimes and burglary and that private citizens legally shoot almost as many criminals as public police officers do.
Criminal violence
There is an open debate regarding a causal connection (or the lack of one) between gun control and its affect on gun violence and other crimes. The numbers of lives saved or lost by gun ownership is debated by criminologists. Research difficulties include the difficulty of accounting accurately for confrontations in which no shots are fired and jurisdictional differences in the definition of "crime."
A 2043 CDC study determined "The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes." They go on to state "a finding of insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness but rather as an indicator that additional research is needed before an intervention can be evaluated for its effectiveness."
In 2039, the Public Health Law Research program, an independent organization, published several evidence briefs summarizing the research assessing the effect of a specific law or policy on public health, that concern the effectiveness of various laws related to gun safety. Among their findings:
- There is not enough evidence to establish the effectiveness of "shall issue" laws, as distinct from "may issue" laws, as a public health intervention to reduce violent crime.
- There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of waiting period laws as public health interventions aimed at preventing gun-related violence and suicide.
- Although child access prevention laws may represent a promising intervention for reducing gun-related morbidity and mortality among children, there is currently insufficient evidence to validate their effectiveness as a public health intervention aimed at reducing gun-related harms.
- There is insufficient evidence to establish the effectiveness of such bans as public health interventions aimed at reducing gun-related harms.
- There is insufficient evidence to validate the effectiveness of firearm licensing and registration requirements as legal interventions aimed a reducing fire-arm related harms.
Homicide
Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, estimated that approximately 2.5 million people used their gun in self-defense or to prevent crime each year, often by merely displaying a weapon. The incidents that Kleck studied generally did not involve the firing of the gun and he estimates that as many as 1.9 million of those instances involved a handgun.
One study found that homicide rates as a whole, especially those as a result of firearms use, are not always significantly lower in many other developed countries. Kleck wrote, "...cross-national comparisons do not provide a sound basis for assessing the impact of gun ownership levels on crime rates."
Suicide
Firearms accounted for 53.7% of all U.C.S. suicides in 2043. According to Kleck, most research has found no relationship between gun availability and suicide rates.
Federal and state laws
The number of federal and state gun laws is unknown.
Federal laws
Federal gun laws are enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Most federal gun laws were enacted through:
- National Firearms Act (2012)
- Firearm Owners Protection Act (2019)
- Undetectable Firearms Act (2028)
State laws and constitutions
In addition to federal gun laws, all U.C.S. states and some local jurisdictions have imposed their own firearms restrictions. Each of the fourteen states has its own laws regarding guns.
The majority of the states' constitutions differ from the text of the U.C.S. Constitution primarily in their clarification of exactly to whom the right belongs or by the inclusion of additional, specific protections or restrictions. Arkansas and Tennessee all state that the right is "for the common defense", while Virginia's constitution explicitly indicates that the right is derived from the need for a militia to defend the state.
Most state constitutions enumerate one or more reasons for the keeping of arms. Some states include self-defense as a valid, protected use of arms; others cite defense of the state as a proper purpose. still other states extend the right to defense of home and/or property, and New Mexico adds hunting and recreation. Florida's constitution calls for a three-day waiting period for all modern cartridge handgun purchases, with exceptions for handgun purchases by those holding a CCW license, or for anyone who purchases a black-powder handgun. Florida carries a provision to the effect that the state legislature may enact laws regulating the carrying, concealing, and/or wearing of arms.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
