Gun ownership in the US has a varying degree of opinions ranging from wanting to be able to buy a gun over-the-counter like a pack of chewing gum all the way to a complete ban on guns and related paraphernalia. Most people fall between these two extremes, but the dangers and consequences of either could be dire. People use the exact wording of the second amendment for and against gun ownership, although generally people agree to some restrictions. Courts have also upheld altered reasons for the possession of firearms. However, through all of this exists a loophole in federal law that would at least help keep firearms out of the hands of those that we all generally agree should not have firearms.

The second amendment states “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.” Many take this “well regulated militia” aspect of it and ask if the gun owners have a well regulated militia. However, in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, a case regarding a handgun ban in D.C. and the storage of other types of firearms, the Supreme court upheld that the “second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” It answered the question if gun ownership is for the average citizen or purely the state’s militia. However, it also upheld that guns and gun ownership are not unlimited and that there will still be regulations to be upheld.

Now while I myself do not have such ownership I do support owning firearms, but to an extent. I do believe that if a person owns a gun they need to own one responsibly and to go through background checks which can prove that by owning a gun they would not be an added threat to society or harmful to oneself. In fact, federal law agrees with this as many others -including those who dislike many federal regulations on firearms- would also. Common sense dictates that those with a many types of mental health and mental disabilities should not own a firearm. Many who support police would agree that felons, especially those with violent crime convictions, should not own a firearm. With all of this said, people still oppose a certain problem we have in federal law that would help assure these people do not obtain said weapons.

Though there some obstacles and restrictions to own a gun, as some states are stricter than others, there is a federal loophole that allows those whom should not own a firearm to obtain one. It is known as the “gun show loophole” AKA the private sale exemption. People tend to argue that the federal government already requires background checks. They are ignorant of this loophole that still exists today. It references when a gun is sold by a private seller to a buyer which would not require a background check. Note that this does not mean when buying from a licensed firearms dealer, but when someone purchases a firearm on a secondary market; i.e. someone purchases from a dealer then sells the gun. Under the federal law, anyone can sell a firearm to another person that is a resident of the state the seller currently resides in as long as they do not know or suspect the buyer is prohibited from owning a gun. However, when purchasing a gun in certain states, it is allowed in several other states. So the purchaser does not have to permanently reside in the state in which he purchased the gun to own and sell the gun.

This of course is a major loophole because if a person that is a legal gun owner who has passed a background check in order to own their gun resells their gun to another, the second buyer does not have to go through the same restrictions as the previous owner. So the initial purchaser may not have knowledge that this buyer should of never been able to purchase a firearm on their own, or may know and does not care. This can potentially harm others because even though the gun was purchased legally, it could be be resold to someone that is not a responsible gun owner. This allows for willful ignorance and shady dealings to take place under the guise of following the law. After the initial purchase, there is no law that requires any way to track that firearm, giving it the potential to hit the black market. There are those who legally purchase guns in order to resell knowing and unknowingly as well as directly or indirectly to those that common sense dictates and most agree should not own a firearm. Yet, for some reason, cognitive dissonance allows some to justify not regulating a secondary sale of a firearm to have no background checks in which the initial purchaser has to pass.

Atf.gov. 2021. To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. [online] Available at: <https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/whom-may-unlicensed-person-transfer-firearms-under-gca> [Accessed 6 June 2021].

LII / Legal Information Institute. 2021. Second Amendment. [online] Available at: <https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment> [Accessed 6 June 2021].

https://health.ucdavis.edu/vprp/CBC%20White%20Paper%20Final%20Report%20022013.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062600615.html

I have self graded this project as 15. This meme gives a clear and present example of a law/loophole in gun ownership and my stance on it. It also raises the issue of the second amendment which has been discussed in the reading as well as in class. This has also reached the required length. It is also one that has not been discussed by others in their meme project.