Skip to main content

GUN CONTROL AND ITS HISTORY IN USA

                                GUN CONTROL AND ITS HISTORY IN USA 


INTRODUCTION 

Last year, two mass shootings occurred in the United States: one in Atlanta, where eight people were killed, including six Asian women, and another in Boulder, Colorado, where ten people were killed inside a grocery store by a shooter.

The two incidents reignited debate over gun restrictions in the United States, which has among of the world's most lax firearms laws. The United States has the world's highest rate of civilian gun ownership. According to the RAND Corporation's Gun Policy in America Initiative, around one out of every 10 Americans owns a firearm. According to a 2016 study, this could be one of the causes behind the country's six-fold higher homicide rates than other countries.

HISTORY OF GUN LAWS IN USA


According to law only a few persons, such as those with a criminal record or mental illness, may find it difficult to acquire a gun in the United States, as it is written in the country's Constitution. Despite the fact that gun ownership is a constitutional right in the United States, restrictions governing who can buy a gun vary by state.

In the United States, gun regulation is based on the country's Constitution's Second Amendment. According to Library of Congress records, the Supreme Court delivered a judgement interpreting the Second Amendment for the first time since 1939 in June 2008.The court concluded at the time that the amendment granted citizens of the United States the freedom to possess a firearm for historically authorised purposes such as self-defense. After President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were assassinated in 1968, Congress approved the Gun Control Act (GCA). Following these legislation, a slew of other measures were enacted. For example, in 1986, Congress relaxed some of the GCA's restrictions, making it easier for illicit gun dealers to operate. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, made it easier for people who trade in firearms to conduct background checks on their customers, ensuring that felons and other prohibited people couldn't buy them.

Despite this, there is currently no one statute or provision in the Constitution that governs gun regulation. In fact, there is little agreement among experts on which types of gun restrictions and policies can effectively reduce violence.





CONCERN OVER GUN CONTROL

As per data compiled by the Pew Research Centre, about 30 per cent of American adults said they personally own a gun and an additional 11 per cent said that they live with someone who owns a gun..Further, as per this survey, about two-thirds of the gun owners said that one of the major reasons for owning a firearm was protection, followed by hunting (38 per cent), sport shooting (30 per cent), gun collecting (13 per cent) or their job (8 per cent).



STANCE OF US GOVERNMENT 

Following the past incidents, Biden had called for the Congress to work on a much stricter and efficient gun control measures. There had been a divide in how Republicans and Democrats see gun laws. While the Republicans had typically resisted making gun control stricter, Democrats had supported it.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more