Annie Get Your Gun? An Analysis of Reactionary Gun Control Laws and Their Utter Failure to Protect Americans from Violent Gun Crimes
Aimee Elizabeth Kaloyares
Southern University Law Review
March 27, 2013
Southern University Law Review, Vol. 40.2, 2013
Reactionary gun control legislation fails to halt gun crime because it consistently fails to address the underlying causes of gun crime; which current laws, if enforced, would prevent. Moreover, the guarantees of the Second Amendment to “bear arms” are in constant conflict with reactionary legislative proposals, resulting in the attempt to lessen the protections of the United States Constitution. A retrospective analysis of violent gun crimes in the United States such as the Columbine shootings, the Virginia Tech shootings, the Tucson Arizona shootings and the Aurora Colorado shootings will show that each reactionary law proposed failed strict scrutiny and offered no more protection than the existing laws. Further, a brief analysis of the positions groups or agencies like the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the Clinton Administration and the Obama Campaign illustrate the controversy surrounding gun control legislation with an emphasis on the enforcement of current law over the institution of reactionary proposals. In the wake of continued gun violence, like the Sandy Hook shootings, it becomes clear that better enforcement of existing gun control laws is the key to providing safety to American citizens; not the continued proposal of reactionary gun control laws.
Keywords: Second Amendment, right to bear arms, federalist, Violent Crime Control and Enforcement Act, Jefferson, Madison, Lott, U.S. Constitution, ATF, NRA, Brady Law, Obama Campaign, Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson Arizona, Aurora Colorado, Clinton, Cho, Klebold, Harris, Jared Lee Loughner
Date posted: April 18, 2013 ; Last revised: July 27, 2015