Editorial

Leave Gun Laws Alone

By Jamie Pierson

I feel that there very few changes that need to be made to the Vermont State gun laws. Vermont is the second safest state in the USA to live. If that is true then don’t you think the gun laws are doing their job? Gun Laws in Vermont protect our second amendment right to bear arms, but some added restrictions would be appropriate and the current gun laws have proven successful.

Gun laws in Vermont should not be more restrictive so we can protect the right of self defense as well as recreation. An individual has the right to self defense. If that individual has a gun in his/her home, then that gun serves as a great self defense mechanism. If that individual does not have a gun on them because maybe committed a small crime earlier in life then don’t you think that is unfair to them since they have the right to self defense? I do, you should be able to have a second chance at being responsible with a gun if you just messed up a little early in life. Another reason why more gun restrictions would not be a good thing is that it could prevent people from accessory to a gun for hunting (recreational) purposes only. Nobody should be prevented from doing something that is just a hobby. I think the only circumstance where that would be unacceptable would be if someone was a felon, which would be a good reason for them to not be able to purchase a gun at all. If guns are fairly easily accessible to the general public, it has been proven that criminals are less likely to commit a crime with people around because they fear that a bystander or the victim may have a firearm and will be able to defend themselves and one another. These are all reasons why gun laws in Vermont should not be more restrictive. It would take away some of our basic rights and that would be unconstitutional.

Gun laws in Vermont should also not be less restrictive because our society needs to limit access to weapons to people who may not be ready for them. The college age 18-24 is the point in an individual’s life where they are most volatile, and most likely to commit a gun related crime in their life. If it too easy to purchase a hand gun then it seems reasonable to assume that more college students would purchase handguns and since there is no law about taking any sort of gun safety course for just purchasing a handgun then some pretty uneducated, volatile college students would be walking around with guns. A restriction that should be added in my mind is that in order to purchase a handgun, an individual must take a handgun safety course, or at the very least a hunter safety course. This would definitely eliminate misfire accidents and other accidents relating to people not knowing how to use a gun. Since Vermont already has very lax gun laws am convinced there would most definitely be more gun related crimes in Vermont if we lowered the gun restriction laws even more in Vermont.

Current Vermont gun laws have proven to be successful in the recent years. Vermont has the least amount of gun related crimes on average out of all fifty states, and the second least crime rate in the US. In my mind that does not suggest that change needs to occur in that category. Why change laws that are proving successful in the recent years? I can see a few minor changes being made to prevent accidental gun crimes, but there is definitely no reason for the Vermont State gun laws to be more restrictive or more unrestrictive. The gun restrictions in Vermont are right where they need to be. They aren’t so unrestrictive that any old Joe can just go out and buy a pistol at the sporting good store in town, but they aren’t so restrictive that a man looking to buy a handgun to keep in house for safety in case of a burglary can’t get that gun, when all he wants to do is use the firearm to enforce his second amendment rights and use it to protect himself. I think it’s a very fair statement to say that the Vermont state gun laws are doing their job, seeing that Vermont has the lowest gun related crime rate in the US.

I believe Vermont has the most effective gun laws for their state in the US. I think all states should take a look at Vermont’s gun restrictions and see if they can try and mock our (Vermont’s) gun laws, but in a way that fits their state population-wise, and criminally. I feel like this would help solve some of the problems states are having with unhappy citizens about their right to bear arms. Since Vermont’s gun laws are what I think to be just right, and the vast majority of residents of this state are pleased with their ability to support their right to bear arms, so you would think if states mocked our laws then it would make a lot of these unhappy civilians more pleased. Overall I am very pleased with how the Vermont laws give the people their right to bear arms, and how they have proved to limit gun related crimes in the last decade. I feel that there are no major changes that need to be made to the Vermont gun laws, if anything some minor changes to educate Vermont more on how to use a gun before you are able to purchase one so that unintentional gun accidents are reduced.

My Interview

My interview was was with Hinesburg police officer Brian Fox. It was a pretty predictable interview. His answers were fairly detailed and he answered all of the questions well. I was dissipointed because I feel like he did not understand my question about students on college campuses carrying a gun on campus. I was looking foward to hearing another perspective on the issue of carrying a concealed weapon on college campuses. The hardest past of the proces was probably coming up with good questions that he would be able to answer with detail. One thing I had to consider was if the question related to him. I could come up with a ton of great questions about the right to bear arms but if they dont relate to some of Mr. Fox's experiances then he wouldnt have a lot of input on the topic. Overall the interview went well and i feel like i gained some quality knowledge about my issue and the reality of it.

Stakeholders

Would Allowing Students to Carry Weapons Make College Campuses Safer?

One side of this issue believes that allowing students to carry weapons on campus would most definitely create a safer environment. The organization of Gun Owners of America argues that "guns have already saved lives at school". In many instances there has been a situation where a shooting is occurring or about to occur and it has been stopped because a bystander with a firearm used their weapon to either take out the shooter, or make him surrender his weapons. Another point is that as a shooter, you are not going to want to do a shooting if you know that bystanders have guns and will probably do something about it. This definitely prevents shooting from happening because the shooters are scared off by the fact that they are entering an armed environment where they could be killed as well if they start to cause chaos.

The opposite side of the issue believes that bringing weapons into a school environment will just lead to more violence. The Brady Campaign argues that the college age 18-24 is the point in a persons life where they are most volatile and most apt to committ such a crime. The Brady Campaign then reasons, why allow firearms and weapons to to be had at the most "dangerous point in an individuals life, and when they are surrounded by thousands of individuals at their volatile stage in life as well.

http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/would-allowing-students-to-carry-weapons-make-college-campuses-safer

Panel Day Reflection

I thought the panel day was a great way of getting a "reality check" on your issue. It gave me some more perspectives to think about that i had never considered before. The panelists were great, they made it clear where they stood on the issue and they backed their perspectives up with great evidence and then could analyze it as well. It sort of reminded me of a leaf paragraph the way they gave us their information/perspectives. That made it very easy to take it all in because they told us what they felt in an organized manner. From what I understood the majority of the panelists were pro that you should be able to carry arms, or just that no action is needs to be taken on restricting gun laws even more. In fact, Competitive Shooter Mr. Neilson even stated that he believed there should be less restrictions on gun laws. One great point all the panelists agreed on was that no matter how strict the gun laws are, a criminal is going to get a gun no matter what because he/she does so illegally. I completely agree with this. Do people think that just because its harder to get a gun legally, that will make it harder to get a gun illegally? I certainly don't.

Court Cases

McDonald vs Chicago: Many lawsuits were filed against Chicago and Oak Park after they challenged the courts ruling that the court stated after the Heller vs District of Columbia case. They appealed that it was unconstitutional that the District of Columbia was banning guns in the area. The court then ruled that it was unconstitutional for the ban of guns in the District if Columbia.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_1521

District of Columbia vs Heller: The District of Columbia passed a law banning the purchase of handguns and that all owned legal firearms must be kept unloaded. The District of Columbia appealed that this was unconstitutional and that the 2nd amendment only applied to militia not private gun ownership. After a 5-4 decision the court ruled that the 2nd amendment does not apply to private ownership of handguns and only to militia. It then ruled that it is legal to own a handgun for the purpose of only using it for protection of the self and an individual's home.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290

Current Interpretation

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

This is the Vermont law about an individual's right to bear arms. This law mainly addresses that people have the right to bear arms for self defense and for statewide defense. It also states that the civil power can make restrictions and decisions involving the militia and their arms. It states that the military should be under strict control when it comes to the arms they are allowed to posses and when they can posses them.


http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

Constitutional Connection

2nd amendment: 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.

An individual's right to bear arms is directly related to the 2nd Amendment. This is the only Amendment in the constitution that addresses the right to own a gun. As you may be able to tell the text above from the constitution is the extremely vague 2nd amendment. It's also slightly confusing. It then goes on to state that the government has the right to regulate who can obtain a gun. In my view that's stating two pretty different things. Both parts of the amendment contradict and that is not a good thing because that causes confusion and leaves murky water. The amendment is surely not black and white like it really should be.


Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Issue Explanation

The Issue around the second amendment is that the way the Second Amendment is stated in the constitution is extremely vague. The government is making restrictions on who can buy guns, and how easily an individual can get a gun. the Issu centered around these restrictions, and which ones are "constitutional" and which ones are "unconstitutional".

Initial Thoughts

The issue around the right to bear arms is, limits are wanted on the right an individual has to bear arms. Some feel that it is unconstitutional to have these limits because the Second Amendment clearly states that an individual has a right to bear and keep arms, and it shall not be infringed upon. Some feel that we are infringing upon our right to do this by making laws preventing certain people from owning a gun.

Questions
Is it really infringing on an individual's rights to the second amendment if we make a law saying that someone with a severe enough disability can't own a gun? I don't believe it is wrong to make a law like that.