Washington Shipyard Shooting Stirs Debate Over Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms
Provided by HG.org
On Monday, September 16, 2013, Aaron Alexis opened fire in the Washington Naval Shipyard, killing 12 naval and civilian personnel before he was ultimately killed himself by law enforcement. However, much to the surprise of the general public, the weapon that Alexis used to kill 12 innocent people was legal, since when he purchased it, Alexis had no record of either a misdemeanor or felony conviction.
While Alexis had numerous brushes with the law, he was never convicted of a crime that would have denied him the ability to purchase a weapon or apply for a conceal-carry firearms license. Although he legally owned the gun, the fact that he was carrying a shotgun in the District of Columbia and in a concealed fashion is against D.C. firearms laws.
The Second Amendment to the constitution is one of the most hotly contested. It provides the right to bear arms for the purposes of forming an orderly militia. This provision has been cited by pro-gun advocates as an absolute right meant to act as a check on the power of the government by arming the people and preventing, or at least reducing the risk, of a tyrannical government. Anti-gun advocates argue that this is a gross overstatement of the law and that it was rooted in sentiments that made more sense in 18th Century post-revolutionary America rather than in a modern, largely urban society.
As gun laws have evolved over time, the tendency has been to erode the unfettered right to own and carry firearms. Very few jurisdictions allow open carry of firearms by civilians, and a license is required in every jurisdiction to carry a concealed weapon (though the difficulty of obtaining such a license varies widely). Many other laws also affect where a weapon can be carried, such as prohibiting guns and knives in airports, courthouses, etc. Still other regulations affect the types of firearms one can own, such as limiting the sale and/or ownership of fully automatic weapons like machine guns. Nevertheless, it is still legal to own a firearm, a right protected by the Second Amendment.
According to various sources, Alexis legally purchased a Remington 870 pump-action 12-gauge shotgun from a gun store in Virginia. He made the purchase after first test-firing an AR-15 and then the shotgun. One report said that he sought to purchase the AR-15, but a spokesman at Sharpshooters said that there was a wait for approval, so he chose the shotgun instead. He subsequently purchased the shotgun, filling out Virginia and federal application forms.
Both Virginia and federal forms for purchasing and registering firearms ask, among other things, whether the applicant has any prior convictions or a history of mental illness. Answering “yes” to either of these would disqualify the applicant. Following a cursory background check by the police, Alexis was allowed to take the shotgun home with him. That was just two days before the shooting.
However, less than a month earlier, Alexis had sought help at the Department of Veterans Affairs for mental illness. Other reports say that Alexis was a troubled man with a history of angry outbursts. In fact, prior to seeking help from the VA for mental illness, Alexis had called police in Newport, Rhode Island, at a motel near a naval facility, complaining of hearing the voices of three people talking to him through the walls. He said that he was being kept awake by people “sending vibrations into his body” by “using some sort of microwave machine.” Apparently, authorities prevailed upon Alexis to change hotels, but police said that he called again from the new hotel to complain that the voices had followed him and were still talking to him through the walls.
Newport police reported the incident to Naval officials, but because there was no violent encounter with Alexis, he was not arrested or civilly committed to a mental institution. Apparently, the Navy did not suspend his secret security clearance, either. In addition, because there was no record of his mental illness via an involuntary civil commitment, there was no reason for anyone to suspect a problem sufficient to halt the firearms purchase process. Consequently, Alexis could continue gaining access to military facilities nationwide and legally purchase a firearm.
The events of that day are tragic, but it throws into question whether anything could have been done to prevent it, or similar future events. It will doubtless lead to a new public debate over the justification of a right to purchase and carry firearms in our modern society. If you wish to become involved in the debate, there are numerous lobbying groups on both sides of the discussion, or you can contact your legislators directly. You may also wish to speak with local attorneys to see about organizing your own action groups and the requirements for doing so.
Copyright HG.org - Google+
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
The Second Amendment to the constitution is one of the most hotly contested. It provides the right to bear arms for the purposes of forming an orderly militia. This provision has been cited by pro-gun advocates as an absolute right meant to act as a check on the power of the government by arming the people and preventing, or at least reducing the risk, of a tyrannical government. Anti-gun advocates argue that this is a gross overstatement of the law and that it was rooted in sentiments that made more sense in 18th Century post-revolutionary America rather than in a modern, largely urban society.
As gun laws have evolved over time, the tendency has been to erode the unfettered right to own and carry firearms. Very few jurisdictions allow open carry of firearms by civilians, and a license is required in every jurisdiction to carry a concealed weapon (though the difficulty of obtaining such a license varies widely). Many other laws also affect where a weapon can be carried, such as prohibiting guns and knives in airports, courthouses, etc. Still other regulations affect the types of firearms one can own, such as limiting the sale and/or ownership of fully automatic weapons like machine guns. Nevertheless, it is still legal to own a firearm, a right protected by the Second Amendment.
According to various sources, Alexis legally purchased a Remington 870 pump-action 12-gauge shotgun from a gun store in Virginia. He made the purchase after first test-firing an AR-15 and then the shotgun. One report said that he sought to purchase the AR-15, but a spokesman at Sharpshooters said that there was a wait for approval, so he chose the shotgun instead. He subsequently purchased the shotgun, filling out Virginia and federal application forms.
Both Virginia and federal forms for purchasing and registering firearms ask, among other things, whether the applicant has any prior convictions or a history of mental illness. Answering “yes” to either of these would disqualify the applicant. Following a cursory background check by the police, Alexis was allowed to take the shotgun home with him. That was just two days before the shooting.
However, less than a month earlier, Alexis had sought help at the Department of Veterans Affairs for mental illness. Other reports say that Alexis was a troubled man with a history of angry outbursts. In fact, prior to seeking help from the VA for mental illness, Alexis had called police in Newport, Rhode Island, at a motel near a naval facility, complaining of hearing the voices of three people talking to him through the walls. He said that he was being kept awake by people “sending vibrations into his body” by “using some sort of microwave machine.” Apparently, authorities prevailed upon Alexis to change hotels, but police said that he called again from the new hotel to complain that the voices had followed him and were still talking to him through the walls.
Newport police reported the incident to Naval officials, but because there was no violent encounter with Alexis, he was not arrested or civilly committed to a mental institution. Apparently, the Navy did not suspend his secret security clearance, either. In addition, because there was no record of his mental illness via an involuntary civil commitment, there was no reason for anyone to suspect a problem sufficient to halt the firearms purchase process. Consequently, Alexis could continue gaining access to military facilities nationwide and legally purchase a firearm.
The events of that day are tragic, but it throws into question whether anything could have been done to prevent it, or similar future events. It will doubtless lead to a new public debate over the justification of a right to purchase and carry firearms in our modern society. If you wish to become involved in the debate, there are numerous lobbying groups on both sides of the discussion, or you can contact your legislators directly. You may also wish to speak with local attorneys to see about organizing your own action groups and the requirements for doing so.
Copyright HG.org - Google+
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
