U.S. Government: Protect Citizens' Rights, End Domestic Violence - Essay Sample

Introduction

The United States Government exists to serve its people: to establish justice, advance general welfare, provide common defense, foster domestic tranquility and uphold liberty and prosperity (Cheryl). Their primary responsibility lies with safeguarding individual citizens' rights as they pertain to government action. Although the standards detailed in the Constitution reassures protection to the citizens, they are sometimes ineffective. Domestic violence remains a pervasive problem in America and laws against it have been put in place over time to combat it, such as amending the Gun Control Act to address it. Under its amended form, domestic abusers cannot own firearms under certain conditions; specifically it prohibits it upon conviction of domestic violence. Yet despite laws to combat domestic violence cases are still rising significantly. Domestic violence affects men, women and minors equally. Babcock et al. (357) conducted research which demonstrated that one out of every four women and one in every five men have experienced domestic violence at some point during their lifetime; their research study also documented an incidence rate of 4.3 million minor female victimizations and 5.1 million severe female victimizations (Babcock et al. 357). From these figures, gun violence accounts for a significant number. Therefore, the state government should enforce gun control laws and not the federal government.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Gun Control Act

The Gun Control Act (1968) states that people do not have to register guns they already have (Raissian 68). This federal law was amended in 1996 to criminalize gun possession for domestic abusers under certain conditions (Raissian 69). State laws differ significantly from federal firearm regulations in terms of gun ownership, use and ownership. Most state gun laws tend to be less restraining than their federal counterparts; however, that doesn't exempt individual states from compliance with federal firearm legislation - only 40 states currently protect gun rights such as owning and using firearms (California, Maryland, Minnesota and Iowa don't yet). Gaps between laws contribute directly to deaths and injuries related to gun violence. Okey et al. (6) noted that looser gun laws cause the deaths of women at the hands of men in the state of South Carolina. States with strict gun laws have fewest numbers of deaths due to domestic violence. This means that the Federal government cannot enforce strict gun laws. Some of these states include Colorado, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey (Okey et al. 12). These states should act as a benchmark for other states in enacting strict forms of the Gun Control Act.

Crime Rates

Opponents of state governments regulating gun control insist that federal governments have greater authority to address gun ownership and associated harm, however this is no longer true due to increased gun ownership leading to more crimes being committed with guns. Okey et al. (7) argued that an increase in gun ownership facilitates unpredictability in any fight leading to more altercation and more homicide. Allowing states to govern gun laws is likely to reduce ownership and harmful effects like homicides.

Family Issues

In the United States, family law is a domain of the state government. For this reason, Gun control should not be imposed by the federal government. States are handling family issues such as divorce, marriages, and custody, among others (Bavis and Brammer 7). Domestic violence is closely related to these issues, and the state government is in a better position to respond. Furthermore, determining the causes of separation and divorce usually involves issues of spouse abuse. Therefore, if firearms are the cause of domestic violence, gun control should be treated as a family law issue.

Additionally, when Congress passed the Gun Control Act in 1996, the federal judiciary was not given exclusive power to resolve the problem of domestic violence. The Act states that a person subject to domestic violence automatically loses the right to own a gun following an order issued by state judge (Okey et al. 14). Through this, Congress indirectly empowered the state to exercise power over gun control to protect those at risk of domestic violence.

Criminal Justice

Gun violence has historically been considered a criminal justice issue that should fall under federal jurisdiction (Siegel et al. 1122). Yet gun violence continues to increase throughout American society and local areas alike, which proves that federal authorities cannot be relied upon. Just like the issue of drugs that the federal government has unsuccessful resolved despite its extensive efforts, it will not resolve gun violence. Therefore, the state government is in a better position to respond to the local safety issue of its citizens. The issues of domestic violence require quick intervention, and states can accomplish this compared to the federal government. State governments typically employ large numbers of police officers that can investigate cases quickly when compared with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Furthermore, law enforcers at this level are better placed to engage in campaigns designed to reduce gun violence; additionally states governments have primary authority to create and enforce criminal statutes including laws related to gun violence. The growing number of gun owners is becoming overwhelming for the federal government to regulate firearms (Siegel et al. 1124). The workforce enforces the law will not be able to cover all states.

Inconsistency

It has been argued that states have preemption for gun laws, and there is no need for making gun control a state regulation. However, state preemption has led to inconsistency between the state and federal regulation of guns (Siegel et al. 1124). Some states have laws regulating the sale and use of firearms while others do not, leading to different regulations for each state and leading to differences in gun control policies across the nation. Siegel et al. noted that some differences among the states in the effects of law hinder firearms law research (1125). This means that it is difficult to know all firearm owners in each state because of this weakness. Besides, the state statutes are difficult to enforce, and fines are weak. By establishing gun control, state regulation will promote uniformity and consistency at the state level. As a result, each state will concentrate its efforts to fight domestic gun violence more effectively (Okey et al. 18).

Product Control

Firearms are inherently considered as dangerous products to consumers. For this reason, supporters of federal gun control argue that the federal government regulates consumer items, and so are guns. Gun control should not fall solely within the purview of the federal government. Instead, regulatory agencies like Consumer Product Safety Commission or Federal Trade Commission exist to ensure uniform national regulation of products (Okey et al. 2). Therefore, these agencies oversee production and distribution of firearms - though gun violence threatens family harmony so state governments should regulate firearms instead. The state is also responsible for determining the compensation for the injuries and harm caused by products sold by businesses (Okey et al., 19). States usually provide producers with financial incentives to reduce the probability of injuries that may occur following the use of dangerous products. This indicates that gun manufacturers are primarily governed by state law. State courts can also order compensation to pay a victim of domestic violence crime a full amount of losses.

Conclusion

The amended Gun Control Act that criminalizes gun possession for domestic abusers should be administered by state governments instead of the federal government as domestic violence is a family matter and their jurisdiction covers many family matters such as divorce, separation and custody arrangements. Furthermore, domestic violence often involves spouses as well as children so state governments would be in a better position to regulate gun violence related to domestic abuse. The Act does not exempt states from passing judgment to domestic abusers. For example, a state court order can make a person automatically lose his or her gun is found to be subject to domestic violence. The state government should impose a gun Control Act because domestic violence affects local areas. State legislatures should implement gun laws because there are law enforcers at the state level who can help address gun violence issues, and also to foster consistency between federal and state governments in combatting domestic violence. States hold primary responsibility in terms of creating and enforcing crime-fighting measures.

Works Cited

Babcock, Julia, et al. "Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programs: A Proposal for Evidence-Based Standards in the United States." 2016, pp. 355-460.

Bavis, Barbara, and Robert, Brammer. "Family Law: Beginners Guide." https://guides.loc.gov/family-law. Accessed 28 Apr.2020.

Cheryl, Lederle. "The Preamble to the Constitution: Making Inferences About Intent using Two Drafts from the Library of Congress." 24, Jan. 2013. https://blogs.loc.gov/teachers/2013/01/the-preamble-to-the-constitution-making-inferences-about-intent-using-two-drafts-from-the-library-of-congress/. Accessed 28 Apr. 2020.

Okay, Mary Summersby, and Sarah Cohen. "Gun Control and Domestic Violence: An Intersectional Examination." 2016, pp. 1-21

Raissian, Kerri M. "Hold your fire: Did the 1996 Federal Gun Control Act expansion reduce domestic homicides?." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 35.1 (2016): 67-93.

Siegel, Michael, et al. "Firearm-related laws in all 50 U.S. states, 1991-2016." American Journal of Public Health (ajph) July 2017, (107)7, pp. 1122-1129