Gun Ownership in California
California State laws impose certain requirements on possessing a gun and make it a crime for an individual to carry a concealed weapon. Several sections of the California Penal Code control firearms and weapons, manage restrictions and prevent gun violence. Adults older than 21 have the right to buy and possess a gun that should be approved after a 10-day waiting period. A person needs to take a training course, get a firearm safety certificate, and have a concealed weapons license. People with any felony conviction, a mental health disorder, subjected to a restraining order or injunction, or an outstanding warrant are prohibited from owning a gun. These negative behaviors question safety issues about using and possessing firearms. In my opinion, California gun ownership laws are restrictive enough to prevent serious problems and negative outcomes. The state needs time to check the individual’s appropriateness for owning a gun from mental health, behavioral, and administrative perspectives.
Second Amendment
- I chose the case United States v. Miller (1939) because it was a good example of how the role of the militia has to be interpreted in society. It is not enough to consider all males physically capable of defense but to learn how the Second Amendment could challenge the population (Robson 479). Individuals have the right to keep and bear guns, but this case is the only one when courts cannot decipher its holding clearly.
- The Supreme Court of the United States. United States v. Miller, vol. 307, U.S. 174, 1939.
- According to the chosen case, weapons that have reasonable effectiveness in a well-regulated militia could be free from government and court regulation. Miller and Layton were charged with illegally transporting a double-barrel 12-gauge shotgun that contradicted the National Firearms Act of 1934.
- The primary holding of the case is that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to use a gun, and gun ownership can be justified by a well-regulated militia only. The reasoning behind the holding included the application of the Second Amendment only.
- The decision of this case is one of the most ambiguous examples of how the law could protect and charge simultaneously. It proved that the Second Amendment was enough to tax firearms even if criminals used them. I cannot agree with the narrowness of this decision and believe that modern laws are effective enough to prevent similar controversies.
Work Cited
Robson, Ruthann. Liberty, Equality, and Due Process: Cases, Controversies, and Contexts in Constitutional Law. 3rd ed. CALI, 2021.