GUN LAW PROPOSAL

Gun Law Proposal: The No Mercy Bill

Introduction

Gun control and various efforts to rein in gun-related violence deaths continue to be rather emotional and contentious issues. For this reason, no meaningful progress has been made to comprehensively address the problem of gun violence in most of the countrys states. This text focuses on a bold attempt to rein in gun-related violence involving minors in a local community following the gunning down of 35 people by a 16-yearold minor. In essence, the community through a representative group referred to as Fed Up proposes that going forward, parents of minors who engage in or commit gun violence be held strictly liable for such crimes. As a legislator in this particular community, I DO NOT support the proposed strict liability crime bill.

Discussion

Background

From the onset, it would be prudent to note that there is no doubt whatsoever that gun violence is a major issue of concern across the U.S. Available data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDC (as cited in Gramlich, 2023) indicates that thousands of Americans continue to die each year from gun-related injuries across the nation. Indeed, the most recent complete data from the year 2021 shows that in the said year alone, gun-related injuries claimed a total of 48,830 lives. This, as has been indicated by the CDC (as cited in Gramlich, 2023), is inclusive of those who lost their lives as a consequence of gun murders and suicides. This is a pointer towards the need to put in place measures to reduce gun-related deaths at both the national and state/community levels. Amnesty International (2022) is categorical that gun-related violence runs contrary to the right to life, which happens to be a fundamental human right. It is also important to note that as Amnesty International (2022) further indicates, gun-related violence does not always result in injury or death. Sometimes, the harm occasioned could be psychological. For instance, those who have witnessed gun-related violence could carry psychological scars or even suffer from serious mental health concerns such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). All these are pointers to the need to address the problem of gun violence.

Various proposals have in the past been floated in efforts to rein in or bring an end to gun-related violence. These are inclusive of, but they are not limited to; the implementation of stricter background checks, limiting or restricting the sale and ownership of assault rifles, confiscating the firearms of persons who are deemed a threat to the wellbeing and safety of others, etc. The present proposal seeks to ensure that parents are held accountable for gun-related crimes and misdeeds of their children (minors). More specifically, this would mean that if a minor commits a gun-related crime using a firearm or firearms owned by their parents, the said parents would in this case be held strictly liable for the crime committed. It is important to note that proof of a guilt will not be a requirement under the proposed bill as currently formulated. Further, it should be noted that although criminal liability cannot be removed by mitigating factors, the bill makes an allowance for the sentence to be reduced by the said factors. The Fed Up group is convinced that if fewer parents own or possess guns, then minors will have no access to guns effectively resulting in a reduction in gun-related violence and homicide involving minors. The group also hopes that the proposed bill will help adapt the societys attitude towards guns.

My Position on the No Mercy Bill

As has been indicated in the introductory section, I am opposed to the No Mercy bill in its entirety. To begin with, it should be noted that the No Mercy bill could be viewed as a backdoor affront to the right to bear arms. In addition to having been part of our culture for a long time, the right to keep and bear arms happens to be a key Second Amendment right that is aimed at protecting the right of the citizens of this great republic to bear arms. This is notwithstanding the fact that this happens to be one of our constitutions most debated portions. The bill will effectively discourage (and possibly stop some) parents from owning guns as it proposes that they be held strictly liable for the misuse of firearms registered to them by minors. Given that criminal intent does not have to be proven on this front, and owing to the fact that the sentence cannot be removed by mitigating factors such as secure storage of a firearm, most parents with children or kids who are yet to attain the age of the majority would effectively avoid owning firearms. Thus, it could be argued that the bill un-procedurally limits this particular right granted to all Americans by our constitution. Yuill and Street (2017) are categorical that over the years, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitutions right to bear arms as an individual self-defense right (142).

Next, I am of the opinion that the No Mercy bill would effectively set a dangerous precedent in as far as prosecutorial overreach...

…that more guns result in a higher number of more crimes. There are a number of more recent studies that appear to have a similar conclusion. For instance, in a 2013 study, the authors observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates (Siegel, Ross, and King, 2013, p. 98). At first instance, the link between the number of guns and crime/homicide rates appears to be entirely or largely logical. However, the studies highlighted herein fail to take into account the impact other strategies such as safe firearm storage measures would have on crime/homicide rates. This is to say that if persons observe ideal secure gun storage regulations and/or standards, there will be little likelihood of guns falling into the wrong hands.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, it would be prudent to note that as has been indicated in this write-up, there is no doubt whatsoever that a lasting solution to the problem of gun violence involving minors should be found and implemented. This is more so the case given the negative effects of gun violence on society, families, nd individuals. However, there is need to ensure that the measures embraced on this front are effective, meaningful, and do not have a negative or otherwise unintended outcomes. The bill proposed in this case, i.e. the No Marcy bill, does not satisfy these standards. In addition to presenting the risk of setting of a dangerous precedent in as far as prosecutorial overreach is concerned, a strong argument could be presented to the effect that the bill runs afoul of the spirit of the constitution (i.e. with regard to the Second Amendment). Further, the No Mercy bill fails to address a key root cause of gun violence involving minors, i.e. depression, and as a consequence fails to acknowledge and remedy the other consequences of this mental health condition.

The probable racial implications of the bill, as has been highlighted in this write-up, also disqualify it as an ideal or desirable solution to the problem of gun-related violence involving minors. Putting more people in jail, if we manage to do so in the first place, will not address the problem highlighted in this text. There exists other better strategies of preventing the misuse of guns by minors without necessarily curtailing the right of deserving and competent citizens to keep and bear arms or appearing to do so via the enactment and implementation of certain laws. Options that could be explored are inclusive of, but they are not limited to, apportioning greater focus on other measures such as stricter…