Colleen Hanabusa says, “I am certain that there are extremists on both sides of the gun control debate in Hawaii, as in the rest of the nation. However, it has been willingness and ability to develop mutually respectful and effective gun control laws that have kept our community safe.” There is a very high level of disagreement about the need for new gun control laws. It is evident that reaching a “mutually respectful and effective” dialogue will be challenging. Tougher gun control laws are necessary because these laws, once enforced, will make it harder for criminals and mentally unstable people to get weapons. Gun control laws, if properly written, will also restrict the kind of weapons that are legal for a person to own.
The many incidents …show more content…
In this article the authors Orens and Carotti-Sha (2018), report that the Second Amendment is often interpreted in different ways and most significant is that state laws are sometimes in conflict with the United States Constitution. The authors Orens and Carotti-Sha (2018) discuss the case of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 where the Supreme Court reversed a D.C. law that prevented residents from owning certain handguns. In this case the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment protects responsible, law abiding citizens’ rights to posess working handguns in their homes for self defense. The ruling in this case clearly indicating that the interpretation of the word ‘militia’ was that individuals could own guns, whereas gun control advocates point out that when the term ‘militia’ is used elsewhere in the Constitution it always refers to the state-organized militia which is today’s organized National Guard. In his article entitled, Interpreting the Right to Bear Arms – Gun Regulation and Constitution Law, Tushnet J.D. (2008) argues that in the 18th century, individuals may have had the right to bear arms, but the phrase “keep and bear arms” was used only in reference to military
The many incidents …show more content…
In this article the authors Orens and Carotti-Sha (2018), report that the Second Amendment is often interpreted in different ways and most significant is that state laws are sometimes in conflict with the United States Constitution. The authors Orens and Carotti-Sha (2018) discuss the case of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 where the Supreme Court reversed a D.C. law that prevented residents from owning certain handguns. In this case the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment protects responsible, law abiding citizens’ rights to posess working handguns in their homes for self defense. The ruling in this case clearly indicating that the interpretation of the word ‘militia’ was that individuals could own guns, whereas gun control advocates point out that when the term ‘militia’ is used elsewhere in the Constitution it always refers to the state-organized militia which is today’s organized National Guard. In his article entitled, Interpreting the Right to Bear Arms – Gun Regulation and Constitution Law, Tushnet J.D. (2008) argues that in the 18th century, individuals may have had the right to bear arms, but the phrase “keep and bear arms” was used only in reference to military