# data[].attributes.body
Anonymous 10m
In some cases, killing someone if used for self-defense does not make them a murderer. A homicide can be justified if it prevents a serious crime. -N.C
Your avatar

Add comment
 add

# data[].attributes.body
I think the con about the second amendment won because Juliet provides a lot of evidence and information about how guns are a threat to our country. For example, how there’s more school shootings in America since 2009 compared to five countries altogether. Also, how teen suicide is the second leading cause of death by guns. Guns are the reason so many families are losing their loved ones, we should stand up and fight for our country.

# data[].attributes.body
In conclusion, we need to abolish the second amendment, because of the horror and violence that guns bring. America is headed down hill if we do not follow in the steps of countless other countries that have controlled gun ownership. The benefits of ending the possession of firearms is tremendous compared to the benefits of having one, to which there are other options for self defense. this is a necessity for the safety of our country and children.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the con of the second amendment won. Juliet provided numerous statistics about the dangers of guns, including school shootings and suicides. The people who will be in charge of this country in the future are being greatly affected by school shootings, whether it is being injured, losing a friend or family member, or even being killed themselves.

# data[].attributes.body
To conclude, bearing arms is seen as a negative right for Americans but really it has positive effects. The right to bear arms is not the issue, when really unfit people are the problem. This is a natural right given to all citizens, and taking it away would be taking away as essential right; to protects one's protection. This amendment has not been abolished for an obvious reason, it defends people who need it.

# data[].attributes.body
The right to bear arms is a freedom for the people, and cannot be taken away from them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Copyright © 1994 Constitution Society. Permission is granted to copy with attribution for noncommercial purposes.

There is considerable confusion about the legal theory underlying the "right to keep and bear arms". This is a brief outline for a clarification of the discussion of this issue.

(1) The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not establish the right to keep and bear arms. None of the provisions of the Constitution establish any "natural" rights. They recognize such rights, but the repeal of such provisions would not end such rights. Such rights were considered by many of the Framers as obvious or "self-evident", but they were immersed in the prevailing republican thought of the day, as expressed in the writings of Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Madison, Hamilton, and others, which discussed "natural rights" in some detail. Others argued that at least some of the rights needed to be made explicit in the Bill of Rights to avoid having future generations with less understanding of republican theory weaken in their defense of those rights. That has turned out to have been a good idea.

(2) The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right of individuals under the theory of democratic government. This was clearly the understanding and intent of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution and was a long-established principle of English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, which is considered to be a part of constitutional law for purposes of interpreting the written Constitution.

(3) What the Second Amendment also does is recognize the right, power, and duty of able-bodied persons (originally males, but now females also) to organize into militias and defend the state. It effectively recognizes that all citizens have military and police powers, and the "able-bodied" ones -- the militia -- also have military and police duties, whether exercised in an organized manner or individually in a crisis. "Able-bodied" is a term of art established by English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, and is the only qualification besides citizenship on what constitutes the "militia". While not well defined in modern terms, it is somewhat broader than just able-"bodied": implicit is also "able-minded" and "virtuous". In other words, persons might be excluded who were physically able to bear arms but who were mentally or morally defective. Defense of the "state" includes self-defense and defense of one's family and friends who are, after all, part of the state, but by establishing the defense of the state as primary a basis is laid for requiring a citizen to risk or sacrifice his life in defense of the state and is thus a qualification on the implicit right of self-defense, which is considered to prevail in situations in which self-sacrifice is not called for.

(4) The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.

(5) The right to keep and bear arms does indeed extend to the states. As do the other rights recognized by other Amendments, and as reinforced by the Fourteenth Amendment. It is not just a restriction on the powers of the central government. On the other hand, the citizens of a state can adopt a constitution that might restrict the exercise of such rights by delegating the power to do so to the state government. However, if the restriction of natural rights is unduly burdensome on those rights, then such a provision would be incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, its guarantee of the rights, and its guarantee that all states have a "republican" form of government - which such restrictions would compromise.

(6) The legal basis for a government not infringing on the right to keep and bear arms is not constitutional provisions like the Second Amendment, but that the power to do so is not one of the enumerated powers delegated to the government, whether Union or State. That delegation must be explicit as pertains to arms. They can't be regulated on the basis of general powers to tax or to regulate commerce. Arms have a special status under constitutional law. Some State constitutions may delegate such powers to the State government. The U.S. Constitution does not delegate such powers to the Union government. No powers are delegated to government by the preamble to a constitution, which is only a statement of purpose, only by provisions in the body of the document and its amendments.

(7) The legal basis on which the states can regulate arms is in those situations in which they conflict with property rights. It is a fundamental principal in law that the owners or managers of real property have the power to regulate who may enter their premises, and to set conditions upon their entry. That includes public property. Citizens have a right to keep and bear arms -- on their own property or property they control -- but not on someone else's property without his permission.

(8) In other words, citizens have a right to keep and bear arms in those places and situations where they have a right to be, unless such rights are disabled by due process of law. Fundamental natural rights can never be lost, as contractual rights can be, only the exercise of those rights restricted or "disabled", to use the legal term. The distinction is very important. Natural rights are those which the individual brings with him when he enters into the social contract, and reclaims if the social contract is broken. The right to keep and bear arms is such a natural right, as is the right of free speech, religious belief, and privacy. The alternative is a contractual right created by a contract, such as the social contract. The right to vote or to be judged by a jury of one's peers are examples of rights created by the social contract, albeit important ones that are also constitutionally protected. Because they are constitutionally protected, it is only proper to speak of them as disabled, rather than lost, so long as the subject remains a citizen or natural person, depending on whether it is a right of citizenship or personhood.

(9) It is unconstitutional to "disable" any rights by statute except one set: the rights of majority. The disabilities of minority do not need to be established by a court trial or hearing. However, they can be removed sooner than they would be removed by constitution or statute, by reaching a certain age. This means it is unconstitutional to disable the right to keep and bear arms to a class of persons by statute, including those, such as felons, who have been the subject of due process on another issue, except through a proceeding in which the court is explicitly petitioned to disable them, the subject has an opportunity to argue to the contrary, the petitioner has the burden of proof that the subject if armed would be a threat to himself or others, and the court grants that petition. Merely being convicted of a crime, or declared mentally incompetent, is not sufficient if the language of the judgement does not also explicitly disable the right to keep and bear arms, or set restrictions on such right.

(10) "General police powers" is not a constitutional basis for states or localities to regulate arms. "General police powers" are the powers to use the means necessary and sufficient to stop someone who threatens to commit a major crime, or to arrest someone who has done so. All citizens have such power. They differ from regular, professional police only in that the regular police also have "special police powers" in matters such as minor offenses, and in that they outrank civilians. Since citizens have general police powers, they also have the right to such means as they require to exercise such powers in situations in which they may be called upon to do so. That includes arms.

(11) To be constitutional, state laws restricting the bearing of arms must distinguish between public property, private commercial property which serves the public and which therefore confers certain rights to the public, and other private property with no public access rights. It is reasonable and constitutional to prohibit persons from bearing arms onto purely private property without notifying the owner or manager and obtaining his or her permission, except over public easements, such as sidewalks or the walkway from the street to the front door. On the other hand, it would be an undue burden on the right to bear arms to forbid persons from traveling between places where they have a right to be, and to bear arms while they do so, along public pathways or private easements, and using their own or a public means of transportation. It may not, however, be an undue burden to prohibit the bearing of arms onto certain public property where persons do not have unrestricted access, such as office buildings and auditoriums, provided that authorities guarantee the safety of persons who enter unarmed. Owners of commercial property serving the public which confers some rights of access to the public may prohibit the bearing of arms by posting or giving a notice to that effect, but lacking such notice, bearing arms onto the premises would be permitted. The rule must be that laws must not burden the right to bear arms except to the extent that they would impose a greater burden on the right of property owners to exclude persons bearing arms.

(12) The law must presume that places of business that cater to arms, such as gun shops and shooting ranges, and events such as gun shows, offer presumptive permission to bear arms and that therefore it is not illegal to bear them there or to travel to and from them.

(13) A carry permit system essentially is a removal of restrictions against bearing arms on public and private property unless there is an express prohibition against doing so, either in the form of a posted sign or a directive from the owner or his agent. The rationale for issuing such permits is to equip persons of good character to more effectively function as militiamen or police in situations in which regular police are not available or insufficient. That also includes self-protection, but the key factor is the duty to perform police duties as necessary. There also needs to be explicit statutory protection of the state or other permit issuing authority against criminal or civil liability for any acts done by the permit holder. One kind of carry permit is that which is one of the "special police powers" of regular law-enforcement officers, which allows them to carry anywhere, even against the express wishes of a property owner.

(14) With the high levels of crime we now endure, the only effective way to extend police protection to a level that might deter crime is to recruit a substantial proportion of the public to go armed, by issuing them carry permits, offering them police training, and organizing them into a network of militia units closely coordinated with regular law enforcement agencies. It is likely that as many as 25% of the adult public could serve in this way on a regular basis, and another 25% on an occasional basis, and that if they did, we might expect it to have a significant positive impact on crime. Some such citizens might even be granted higher police rank, and perform regular police duties on a part-time basis. Such involvement of the public in law enforcement would also have other benefits: breaking down the social and psychological barriers that now separate the regular police from civilians, and deterring some of the abuses of authority that police have sometimes fallen into.

(15) That the militia should be "well-regulated" is not a basis for restricting the keeping or bearing of arms. The term originally meant "self-regulated" and militias could be independent of state or national authority if not called up by such authority. Militia members may be required to carry certain standard arms during formations, but they cannot be forbidden from carrying additional arms of their own unless doing so would impair normal militia operations. State-appointed officers may direct when, where and in what manner members of the militia are to train and perform their duties, but may not forbid them to meet on their own.

(16) The Union government has the power, under the U.S. Constitution, to regulate imports and interstate commerce in arms, but the Framers would not agree with how the "interstate commerce" clause (Art. 1, Sec. 8) of the Constitution has been broadly interpreted to include regulation of manufacture, possession, and local sales and use of items. A strict constitutional interpretation requires that the Union government has authority only over transactions that cross state lines, and not over actions or transactions that occur within state borders, even if they involve items that may someday cross state borders or may have once done so. If we want the Union government to have such authority, and a good case can be made for that, then the U.S. Constitution needs to be amended to delegate that authority to it.

(17) The Union government also has excise taxing power, but since arms have special status under the Constitution, no tax may be levied that imposes an undue burden on the right to keep and bear arms. Rights are more fundamental than taxing powers, particularly since the right to keep and bear arms is recognized in an amendment which supersedes any prior provisions that conflict with it, which includes all taxing powers except the income tax (which does not provide a basis for taxing arms). Arms may be taxed as general merchandise is, such as with a sales tax, but any tax law which specifies arms for special taxes, other than reasonable use fees for public services related to them, must be considered unconstitutional. That would include taxes on ammunition and the ingredients to make it. The analogy is to taxes on newsprint, which may be taxed like other merchandise, but not in a way that would impose an undue burden on the right of a free press.

(18) This means that no government has the power, unless that power is specifically granted to it under its constitution, to prohibit any person from manufacturing or possessing any gun or ammunition for it on his own premises or where he has a right to be, or against using it in a safe and responsible manner, or against selling or giving it to another person within the borders of a state.

(19) Since the common law prevailing at the time the Constitution was adopted defined "militia" to consist of "able-bodied" citizens, including persons younger than the usual age of majority, any law restricting the possession, sale or gift of guns or ammunition to persons under the age of majority or any other particular age, or to minors (since persons under the age of majority may have their disabilities of minority removed by a court), is also unconstitutional, unless the constitution explicitly includes a disability of the right to keep and bear arms among the disabilities of minority. The proper test for being "able-bodied" must involve meeting certain standards that are independent of age, such as skill, judgement, and level of maturity. It is possible for persons to be "able-bodied" at quite a young age, and the law must recognize that competence where it exists. All citizens above the age of majority would have to be presumed able- bodied unless they or the state petitioned a court to rule otherwise and it granted the petition. However, it would be constitutional to require a reasonable test of competence to citizens below the age of majority, and to issue credentials to those qualifying which they would be required to show when answering calls of the militia or, if the right to keep and bear arms were included among the rights disabled by minority, when bearing arms. Early removal of the disabilities of minority would then also remove the disabilities of the right to keep and bear arms.

(20) The "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution requires that persons issued a carry permit by one state must have that permit recognized in other states. This suggests a uniform standard for qualifying persons for issuance.

REFERENCE: Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man be Armed, available from The Independent Institute, 134 98th Av, Oakland, CA 94603, 510/568-6047.

Constitution Society, 6900 San Pedro #147-230, San Antonio, TX 78216, 210/224-2868

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Legal Theory of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Copyright © 1994 Constitution Society. Permission is granted to copy with attribution for noncommercial purposes. There is considerable confusion about the legal theory underlying the "right to keep and bear arms". This is a brief outline for a clarification of the discussion of this issue. (1) The Second Amendment to the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
Another tragedy is teen suicide, the second leading cause of death in teens, and 2/3 of deaths by guns is suicide. How are these teens getting guns? From their homes, the guns their parents got to "protect" their family caused the tragic loss of their child. Also while 9% of those who attempt suicide die, 85% of suicides with guns die.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Two weeks before my oldest cousin's twenty-third birthday, he shot and killed himself. It scarred our family. The kind of jagged, gnarled scar, like a poorly-filled pothole, that-even though it's been nearly twenty years-you still run your fingers across from time to time and feel the sting of a fresh wound.

We weren't all that close, but as a 14-year-old, sorting through my own perceptions of self-worth and fears about the future at the time of his death, I felt it very deeply. It was the first time a loved one of mine had committed suicide, but it would not be the last. Not even close.

I want to talk about guns. It's controversial, fraught with partisan politics, and the conversation always seems to focus on the fringe issues. We argue about whether we need armed employees at schools or campus gun bans, but the number of deaths from school shootings is very, very small compared to the total number of gun-related deaths (although we all believe the number should be zero). We argue about ways to fix the mental health care system so we keep guns out of the wrong hands, but the connection between mental illness and violence is weak (although we all believe the mental health care system absolutely needs improvement). Those are not the issues I want to talk about (today, at least).

Personal experience always trumps rhetoric, so for me, when I think about guns, it is suicide and its impact on families and communities that weighs on my mind. Unlike the other gun issues we debate, this one is, statistically, the biggest issue related to guns in the US: Americans are far more likely to kill themselves than each other. In 2012, nearly two-thirds of all firearm deaths were suicides, and the number is rising. In fact, firearm homicides have been decreasing since 2006, despite the proliferation of media attention the issue is currently receiving.

Suicide is unquestionably a mental health problem, and an especially big problem in western states like Colorado. But it's a gun problem, too. Of all those who attempt suicide, 9% die; of those who attempt suicide with a gun, 85% die. According to the CDC, more than half of suicide deaths involved firearms-over 21,000 in 2013. That's about the same as the number of deaths from Leukemia each year, and at that scale, it's hard to deny that guns are a public health issue.

Furthermore, the hard truth is that simply having a firearm in your house increases the likelihood of death by suicide for every member of your household, in the same way that smoking around your family increases everyone's chances of dying from lung cancer. Without banning cigarettes and shutting down manufacturers, we've still managed to significantly reduce their negative effects on the general population. If we're willing to have a thoughtful, civil discussion around how we limit exposure of vulnerable populations to guns, one that recognizes that there isn't a single solution, but that we need a multi-faceted, commonsense approach, then we can make progress on this issue, too.

I want our leaders and our country to keep talking about guns, because we haven't found our common ground yet. I want our communities to talk about public safety, crime, and individual liberties, but not let fear guide our policymaking. And, I want us all to talk about the lives that are at stake, and the loved ones we've lost.

Suicide has always been a taboo way to die-a cause of death that's quietly left out of obituaries-and access to a gun facilitates it. The human cost of our silence is too great; so let's talk about it. For David, and all the others.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pulling the Trigger | Center for Health Progress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two weeks before my oldest cousin's twenty-third birthday, he shot and killed himself. It scarred our family. The kind of jagged, gnarled scar, like a poorly-filled pothole, that-even though it's been nearly twenty years-you still run your fingers across from time to time and feel the sting of a fresh wound.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
National Constitution Center - The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
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.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Licensing laws are a simple way to make sure guns are purchased and used by responsible Americans, and yet the federal government-and too many states-have yet to put many of these smart gun laws in place. Gun licensing has been proven to reduce gun violence and trafficking, and it remains a necessary component to crafting comprehensive, effective gun laws.

We require a license for many activities, such as driving, fishing, and working as a teacher, but most states do not require a license to purchase or possess a gun. Licensing laws help ensure that gun owners exercise their Second Amendment rights legally, safely, and responsibly by requiring them to get a license before buying a firearm. Licensing laws also help reduce gun crimes and thwart gun traffickers. Although licensing laws vary by state, the most comprehensive laws require all gun owners to obtain a license and regularly renew it. Licenses may only be issued or renewed after the applicant has undergone a background check, completed a safety training course, and passed written and performance-based tests showing that the applicant knows relevant gun laws and how to safely load, fire, and store a gun.

Licensing Laws Help Prevent Gun Crimes

Licensing laws are one way of closing the "private sale loophole"by ensuring that gun owners have passed a background check and by preventing prohibited individuals like felons and minors from buying guns.Other states close the private sale loophole by requiring a background check at the point of sale of a firearm. For more information about this issue, see our summary on Universal Background Checks.

In addition to stopping gun purchases by prohibited individuals, licensing laws that require periodic renewal reduce gun crimes by:

Helping law enforcement confirm that a gun owner remains eligible to possess firearms.

Facilitating the removal of firearms from people who have become ineligible.

Licensing laws also help prevent the trafficking of crime guns. A September 2010 report by Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that states requiring a license to be issued for all handgun sales were the source of significantly fewer guns used in crimes than states that do not have licensing laws. And a 2001 study analyzing data from 25 U.S. cities found that states with some form of firearm registration and licensing in place have greater success keeping firearms sold by dealers in that state from being recovered in crimes.

Allowing people to buy guns without getting a license or passing a background check would likely increase gun crimes. In 2007, Missouri repealed its requirement that handgun purchasers obtain a permit after a background check. Since the repeal of this licensing law, gun crimes in Missouri have markedly increased. For example:

The share of crime guns recovered in Missouri that were originally purchased in-state has grown by 25%.

A key indicator of crime gun trafficking-the share of guns that were recovered at crime scenes within two years of their original sale-has doubled.

The crime gun murder rate in the state has risen nearly 25%.

Licensing Laws Facilitate Safe Gun Ownership

Safety training and testing requirements in licensing laws help make sure that gun owners obey the law and understand how to handle their firearms safely. By training owners on safe firearm storage and operation, licensing laws empower responsible gun ownership, and help reduce the shocking number of unintentional shootings, firearms thefts, and accidents involving minors that occur every year. For statistics regarding these problems, see our summary on Safe Storage.

Broad Public Support

Public opinion polls show that Americans strongly support licensing laws, just as they support other common-sense measures that ensure responsible gun ownership. A survey conducted in January 2013 found that 77.3% of Americans (including 59.4% of gun owners) support requiring people to obtain a license before buying a gun to verify their identity and ensure they are not prohibited from having a gun. The licensing of handgun owners has even more support. In a 2001 nationwide poll, 85% of respondents-including 73% of gun owners-favored laws requiring handgun purchasers to get a permit and register their handguns. In fact, 70% of the respondents mistakenly believed that a national system of licensing and registration already exists (it doesn't).

Federal law does not require licensing of gun owners or purchasers.

For information about the exemption that federal law provides for certain license holders to the background check required when a firearm is purchased from a licensed dealer, see our summary on Background Check Procedures.

In general, state licensing laws fall into four categories: (1) permits to purchase firearms, (2) licenses to own firearms, (3) firearm safety certificates, which indicate that the certificate-holder has completed required safety training and is licensed to purchase a firearm, and (4) registration laws that impose licensing requirements.

"Permit to purchase": Ten states have enacted permit to purchase licensing schemes that require prospective purchasers obtain a permit or license before buying at least some firearms.

"License to own": Three states-Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York-require a license to own firearms (New York's law applies only to handguns). Unlike a permit to purchase, a license to own a firearm must remain valid for as long as the person owns the firearm.

Firearm Safety Certificate: One state-California-requires all prospective firearm purchasers to first obtain a certificate showing that they have completed required firearm safety training.

Registration: One jurisdiction-the District of Columbia-has a registration law that also functions as a license requirement.

Any of these forms of licensing laws can be used to impose a background check requirement, or (like California's firearm safety certificate) they can be used to supplement a separate background check system. See our summary on Universal Background Checks for further information. Permits to purchase, licenses to own, firearm safety certificates, and registration requirements can also be used to ensure that firearm owners or purchasers have undergone adequate safety training or testing.

State Laws Governing Licensing of Gun Owners or Purchasers

State Licensing Requirements for Gun Purchase or Possession

States with Licensing Requirements that Apply to All Guns

The seven states listed below have enacted the strongest licensing laws because they require licenses to possess, permits to purchase, and/or firearm safety certificates for all classes of firearms. Many of the states below also require applicants for a license or permit to successfully complete safety training courses.

California: Firearm Safety Certificate

California requires a Firearm Safety Certificate ("FSC") prior to purchase of any firearm.

Connecticut: Permit to Purchase

Connecticut requires a person who wishes to purchase or receive a handgun to obtain a permit to carry a handgun or a handgun eligibility certificate. Connecticut also requires a person who wishes to purchase or receive a long gun to obtain a long gun eligibility certificate, a permit to carry a handgun, or a handgun eligibility certificate. Permits and certificates may be revoked in the event the holder becomes disqualified.

District of Columbia: Registration

Details about D.C.'s registration requirements for all firearms can be found in our summary on Registration of Firearms in the District of Columbia.

Hawaii: Permit to Purchase

In Hawaii, anyone wishing to acquire a firearm must obtain a permit from the county chief of police. As part of the application process, applicants undergo a background check and must sign a waiver allowing access to mental health records. Permits may not issue until at least 14 days have passed after the date of application, and all permits must be issued or denied before the 20 th day from the date of application. Permits may be revoked for good cause.

Illinois: License to Purchase or Possess

In Illinois, no person may acquire or possess any firearm or ammunition without a valid Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card, or a valid permit to carry concealed handguns. Each applicant for a FOID card is required to complete an application and "submit evidence" to the Department of State Police (DSP) that she or he is not a prohibited purchaser. The DSP has the authority to revoke a FOID card if the holder becomes a prohibited purchaser. Effective January 1, 2014, a private person who sells or transfers a firearm must contact DSP to verify the validity of the purchaser's FOID card.

Duration: FOID cards are valid for ten years from the date of issue.

No Limit on Number of Firearms Purchased: Illinois does not impose any limit on the number of firearms that may be purchased by the holder of a FOID card.

Safety Training? No safety training requirement.

Massachusetts: License to Possess and Permit to Purchase

In Massachusetts, all firearm possessors are required to obtain either a Firearm Identification (FID) card or a Class A or B license to carry a firearm. FID cardholders are permitted to purchase and possess rifles or shotguns, excluding large capacity weapons. A Class A license allows the licensee to purchase and possess all types of lawful firearms; a Class B license is limited to "non-large capacity" handguns and any rifle or shotgun, but does not permit carrying concealed, loaded handguns in a public place. All applicants must undergo a background check. The licensing authority has 40 days to approve or deny the application. A FID card or Class A or B license must be revoked or suspended if the holder becomes disqualified from obtaining the card or license.

To purchase a handgun in Massachusetts, a FID cardholder must also obtain a permit to purchase. A permit to purchase is issued at the discretion of the licensing authority for a "proper purpose," following a background check.

New Jersey: Permit to Purchase

In New Jersey, all handgun purchasers must obtain a permit to purchase a handgun, while purchasers of rifles or shotguns must obtain a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card (FPIC). Both require the applicant to undergo a background check and waive confidentiality relating to any institutional confinement for a mental or psychiatric condition. New Jersey law also provides that no handgun transfer permit or FPIC may be issued where the transfer would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare. In addition, the applicant must be of "good character and good repute in the community" where he or she lives. The FPIC or permit must be issued within 30 days of application, or 45 days if the applicant is a non-resident. A FPIC may be revoked by a superior court after a hearing with notice, upon a finding that the holder no longer qualifies for the FPIC.

Duration: Handgun purchase permits in New Jersey are valid for 90 days, and may be extended for an additional 90 days for good cause. New Jersey FPICs are valid as long as the holder remains eligible to possess a firearm.

Safety Training? No safety training requirement.

States with Licensing Requirements for Handguns Only

The seven states listed below all require licenses or permits for purchase or possession of handguns, but not other types of guns. Of the below states, only Maryland and Rhode Island require safety training to receive a license or permit.

Iowa

Iowa requires a permit to acquire pistols or revolvers. Once an applicant passes a background check and obtains a permit, the permit is valid for 5 years. Permits may be revoked in the event the holder becomes disqualified. County sheriffs in Iowa are authorized to obtain relevant criminal history data and conduct a criminal history check annually on anyone who has been issued a five-year permit to acquire a handgun. However, Iowa law does not require a background check to be conducted on handgun permit-holders more frequently than once every five years (the duration of the permit).

Maryland

Maryland requires that a person obtain a permit before the person buys, rents, or receives a handgun. A permit is valid for 10 years. Maryland applicants must complete an approved safety training course that includes instruction on state firearms law, home firearm safety, handgun mechanisms and operation, and an orientation component that demonstrates the person's safe operation and handling of a firearm.

Michigan

Michigan requires either a license to carry a concealed handgun or a handgun purchase license, although a person who purchases a handgun from a licensed dealer does not need either license. A handgun purchase license is valid for 30 days.

Nebraska

Nebraska issues handgun certificates, although handgun purchasers outside Omaha who purchase from licensed dealers or who have a concealed weapons permit do not need a handgun certificate. Purchasers from private sellers must obtain a handgun certificate. Handgun certificates are valid for three years.

New York

New York requires a license to purchase or possess a handgun. Handgun licenses in New York must be recertified every five years and must specify the weapon by caliber, make, model, manufacturer's name and serial number. Specific provisions apply to permits in New York City, where the duration is three years, and in Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties, where the duration is five years.

North Carolina

North Carolina requires a handgun purchaser to obtain either a permit to purchase a handgun or a concealed handgun permit. Both are valid for five years. The handgun purchase permit is valid for purchase of a single handgun and must be revoked if the person becomes ineligible.

Rhode Island

Rhode Island requires a pistol/revolver safety certificate issued by the state Department of Environmental Management. The certificate remains valid indefinitely. In Rhode Island, anyone wishing to purchase a handgun who does not have a concealed handgun license and is not a member of law enforcement must complete a basic two-hour handgun safety course.

Selected Local Law

New York City

As noted above, while state law in New York requires a person to obtain a permit for the purchase or possession of a handgun, this requirement does not apply to rifles or shotguns. In New York City, however, a permit is required for the purchase or possession of rifles or shotguns. Permits are issued following a background check and are valid for three years. Permits are renewed automatically unless the police commissioner has reason to believe the applicant's status has changed since the previous application. Permits may be revoked and weapons seized upon evidence that the holder of the permit has become disqualified. A rifle or shotgun permit is also required for possession of rifle or shotgun ammunition and a rifle or shotgun ammunition feeding device.

The features listed below are intended to provide a framework from which policy options may be considered. A jurisdiction considering new legislation should consult with counsel.

License is required for possession of any firearm (D.C., Illinois, Massachusetts), and must be shown prior to purchase of any firearm (California, Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey).

License must be shown prior to purchase of a firearm from any seller, even if the seller is not a licensed dealer (five states and D.C. - any firearm; eight states - handguns only).

License conditions include:

Thorough background check (Connecticut, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey - all firearms; Iowa, Michigan, New York and North Carolina also require background checks, but only for handgun licenses).

Safety training (Connecticut, D.C., Massachusetts - all firearms; Hawaii, Maryland, and Rhode Island also require safety training, but only for handgun licenses).

Hands-on testing, including firing testing, to demonstrate safe use of firearms.

Written testing to demonstrate knowledge of applicable firearm laws (California and D.C. require testing on firearms laws).

License has finite duration (California, Connecticut, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts - all firearms; Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey and North Carolina also have licenses of finite duration, but only for handguns).

Renewal process includes background check and testing as described above (Massachusetts).

Licensee is required to report theft or loss of license and firearms.

License is subject to revocation in cases where licensee becomes a prohibited purchaser (Connecticut, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey - all firearms; Iowa also provides for revocation under these circumstances, but only for handgun licenses), or fails to comply with applicable federal, state and local firearms laws.

Fee for license is set at a level sufficient to cover administrative costs associated with licensing system.

Firearm seller or transferor must obtain a copy of the purchaser's license, record a description of the firearm purchased, and forward this record to law enforcement.

Additional requirements are imposed for handgun permit to purchase:

Short duration applies to handgun permit to purchase (Hawaii, ten days; Massachusetts, ten days; Michigan, 30 days; New Jersey, 90 days).

Permit to purchase is limited to one handgun per permit (Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Licensing | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Licensing laws are a simple way to make sure guns are purchased and used by responsible Americans, and yet the federal government-and too many states-have yet to put many of these smart gun laws in place. Gun licensing has been proven to reduce gun violence and trafficking, and it remains a necessary component to crafting comprehensive, effective gun laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The second amendment has become a badge and bumper sticker, a shield for gun activists and scripture for much of the American right. But like other cherished texts, it is not as clear as many make it out to be.

The amendment reads: "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."

For most of the republic's lifespan, from 1791 to 2008, those commas and clauses were debated by attorneys and senators, slave owners and freedmen, judges, Black Panthers, governors and lobbyists. For some, the militia was key; for others the right that shall not be infringed; for yet others, the question of states versus the federal government. For the most part, the supreme court stayed out it.

"Americans have been thinking about the second amendment as an individual right for generations," said Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA and author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. "You can find state supreme courts in the mid-1800s where judges say the second amendment protects an individual right."

But for the 70 years or so before a supreme court decision in 2008, he said, "the supreme court and federal courts held that it only applied in the context of militias, the right of states to protect themselves from federal interference".

In 2008, the supreme court decided the District of Columbia v Heller, 5-4 , overturning a handgun ban in the city. The conservative justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion in narrow but unprecedented terms: for the first time in the country's history, the supreme court explicitly affirmed an individual's right to keep a weapon at home for self-defense.

Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, saying the decision showed disrespect "for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on the court, and for the rule of law itself". Two years later, he dissented from another decision favoring gun rights, writing:

The reasons that motivated the framers to protect the ability of militiamen to keep muskets, or that motivated the Reconstruction Congress to extend full citizenship to freedmen in the wake of the Civil War, have only a limited bearing on the question that confronts the homeowner in a crime-infested metropolis today.

This fight over history, waged by supreme court justices and unlikely allies and foes, goes all the way back.

"People look at the same record and come to wildly different conclusions about what the view was in the 18th century, in the 19th century," said Nicholas Johnson, a Fordham University law professor who argues against Winkler's view of 20th-century case law.

Attempts to parse "original" intent go all the way back to the revolution and its aftermath, when the country's founders bickered about what exactly they were talking about. Carl Bogus, a law professor at Roger Williams University, has argued that James Madison wrote the second amendment in part to reassure his home state of Virginia, where slave owners were terrified of revolts and wary of northerners who would undermine the system.

"The militia were at that stage almost exclusively a slave-control tool in the south," he said. "You gave Congress the power to arm the militia - if Congress chooses not to arm our militia, well, we all know what happens."

The federalist Madison's compromise, according to Bogus, was to promise a bill of rights. After weeks of tense debate, his federalists narrowly won the vote to ratify the constitution. "He writes an amendment that gives the states the right to have an armed militia, by the people arming themselves."

A year later, the federal government passed a law requiring every man eligible for his local militia to acquire a gun and register with authorities. (The law was only changed in 1903.)

After the civil war, second amendment rights were again debated by Congress, which abolished militias in the former Confederate states and passed the 1866 Civil Rights Act, explicitly protecting freed slaves' right to bear arms. A century later, the founders of the Black Panthers took up guns, symbolically and literally, to press for equal civil rights in California.

The state's conservative lawmakers promptly took up the cause of gun control. In 1967, Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, banning the public carry of loaded guns in cities. The governor said he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons".

Reagan later supported the Brady Act, a gun control law named after his aide, who was shot during an assassination attempt on Reagan in Washington DC. The National Rifle Association supported the Mulford Act but opposed the Brady Act, signed into law 26 years later.

Winkler, the UCLA professor, said that during the 1970s, a "revolt among the membership profoundly altered the NRA overnight. Since the 1930s, the group had supported restrictions on machine guns and public carry, but angry hardliners took control over the organization in 1977, when moderates wanted to retreat from lobbying work. The group then began a decades-long campaign to popularize its uncompromising positions.

"The NRA goes far beyond what the second amendment requires - people walking around with permits, on college campuses," Winkler said. "Their argument is it's a fundamental right and freedom. People care more about values than they care about policy."

In the late 1990s, several prominent liberal attorneys, such as Laurence Tribe and Akhil Reed Amar, also argued for an individual right while advocating gun regulation. Gun control activists say they have not changed tack since the supreme court's 2008 decision. Scalia wrote a narrow opinion and listed several exceptions, such as bans on "unusual and dangerous weapons" and sales to domestic abusers and people with mental illness. He also wrote that states and cities could ban firearms from places like government buildings.

Lower courts have upheld many gun laws around the country since 2008, and the supreme court has declined to hear any second amendment cases since 2010. Attorneys and activists on both sides expect a looming fight over the right to carry guns in public, which the Heller decision does not address.

"The courts generally strike a balance between the need for lawmakers to protect public safety and this notion of second amendment rights," said Avery Gardiner, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The Heller decision, she said, was "entirely consistent" with gun laws like background checks.

"There's a mythology here that the supreme court has said something about the second amendment that it hasn't," she said. "I think most Americans don't like reading the footnotes."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The right to bear arms: what does the second amendment really mean?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Its words have fueled centuries of debate - and not until 2008 did the supreme court clearly back an individual's right to keep a weapon at home for self-defense

# data[].attributes.body
Firstly, mass shootings are a plague to this country and have sadly become such a normal thing we barely even react when there is another one in the news. In most other countries mass shootings, especially school shootings are a rarity. Coincidentally, these other countries have much stricter gun laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The US has had 57 times as many school shootings as the other major industrialized nations combined | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There have been at least 288 school shootings in the US since January 1, 2009. That's 57 times as many shootings as the other six G7 countries combined.

# data[].attributes.body
My position is against the second amendment for the American people to have the right to bear arms. Guns are dangerous and one of the root causes of terror facing our country. It is so easy to get a gun in most states in this country, limited background and mental health checks, and many states have no training or exam required to get a gun. As a result this country has suffered countless mass shootings, school shootings and awful gun death numbers. Compared to other countries the statistics from America are awful. Also, suicide is the second leading cause of death in teens and firearm suicide makes up about 2/3 of the firearm deaths (https://www.safehome.org/resources/gun-laws-and-deaths/) (http://prp.jasonfoundation.com/facts/youth-suicide-statistics/). This right should be removed if not removed definitely controlled by a lot, guns bring death whether that be on accident or on purpose people should not be allowed to carry firearms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Image

People in Coral Springs, Fla., demonstrating for stricter gun laws on Friday. Credit Credit Saul Martinez for The New York Times

Had Wednesday's massacre of 17 people at a Florida high school been different in one respect - that is, had alleged perpetrator Nikolas Cruz shouted "Allahu akbar" during the course of his rampage - conservatives would be demanding another round of get-tough measures.

Tougher immigration laws. Tougher domestic surveillance. A rollback of Miranda rights for the accused. Possibly even a Muslim registry. Constitutional protections and American ideals, goes the argument, must sometimes yield to urgent public safety concerns.

But Cruz, like Las Vegas's Stephen Paddock or Newtown's Adam Lanza and so many other mass murderers before them, is just another killer without a cause. Collectively, their carnages account for some 1,800 deaths and close to 7,000 injuries in the United States since the beginning of 2013, according to The Guardian - though that's only a small fraction of overall gun-related deaths. And conservatives have next to nothing of use to say about it.

Well, almost nothing. Some conservatives talk about the importance of mental-health interventions with the potentially violent. Florida Gov. Rick Scott wants to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill. The Obama administration tried to do that after the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre by requiring the Social Security Administration to submit the names of severely unwell persons to the F.B.I.

Congressional Republicans and President Trump reversed the rule a year ago. Representative Salud Carbajal, a California Democrat, introduced a "red flag" bill last May that would make it easier for family members to keep firearms out of the hands of potentially dangerous relatives. The bill has 50 Democratic co-sponsors but not one Republican. Maybe the Parkland massacre will shame the majority into embracing the legislation.

But such laws can achieve only so much. Keeping track of dangerously unstable people who shouldn't own guns but do is hard: Devin Kelley, the Texas church shooter, had once escaped from a mental health hospital and was legally barred from buying the weapon he used to murder 26 people in November. Nor can the federal government be in the business of getting unwell people to take their meds. That way lies the path to a Clockwork Orange.

Beyond that, the conservative answer is: more guns.

It's true that a gun in the right hands at the right time and place can save lives, as the former National Rifle Association instructor Stephen Willeford proved when he shot Kelley as the latter emerged from the church. No sensible society should want to keep arms out of hands like his.

But that's an argument for greater discrimination in terms of who should get to own a gun, not less. The United States has, by far, more guns in more hands than any other country in the developed world. It has, by far, the highest incidence of firearm-related homicides and suicides. Correlation is not causation, but since Americans aren't dramatically crazier than other nationalities, what other explanation is there?

Gun advocates often make the claim that the mere presence of firearms deters crime. But research from Stanford's John Donohue suggests that "right to carry" state laws have led to a 13 to 15 percent jump in violent crime. New York City, with the most aggressive enforcement of gun laws of any major U.S. city, has seen its homicide rate drop to levels not experienced since the 1950s. By contrast, in the permissive gun state of Missouri, St. Louis has the highest per capita murder rate of any major American city.

Nor is it remotely true, as gun advocates contend, that gun bans necessarily result in increased murder rates. The homicide rates in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom have all fallen since enacting strict national gun control. Conservatives are supposed to be empiricists, not idealists. They should learn the lesson of experience.

So all this is an argument for tougher gun-control laws, right? Well, not exactly.

In October, after the Las Vegas massacre, I made the case in this column for repealing the Second Amendment. The column is still being criticized by conservatives for reasons that usually miss the point. We need to repeal the Second Amendment because most gun-control legislation is ineffective when most Americans have a guaranteed constitutional right to purchase deadly weaponry in nearly unlimited quantities.

There's a good case to be made for owning a handgun for self-defense, or a rifle for hunting. There is no remotely sane case for being allowed to purchase, as Paddock did, 33 firearms in the space of a year. But that change can't happen without a constitutional fix. Anything less does little more than treat the symptoms of the disease.

I know what the objections to this argument will be. What about John Locke and Cesare Beccaria? What about the preservation of American liberties and the encroachments of bureaucratic liberal despotism?

Right. What about another 17 murdered souls, and their classmates and families, and the inability of today's conservatives to offer anything except false bromides and empty prayers?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Had Wednesday's massacre of 17 people at a Florida high school been different in one respect - that is, had alleged perpetrator Nikolas Cruz shouted "Allahu akbar" during the course of his rampage - conservatives would be demanding another round of get-tough measures. Tougher immigration laws. Tougher domestic surveillance.

# data[].attributes.body
My position is pro-guns, in support of bearing them. The 2nd amendment should not be banned. The right to bear arms are an essential human right, and banning guns would take away one's liberty. Guns are used as a tool for hunting, and more importantly, they are used for self-defense. People must have the right to defend themselves when their words cannot. People should and must have to right to defend themselves from people who try to harm them, kill them, exploit them, etc. Without having this defense mechanism, people who are found in dangerous situations may not have the change to protect themselves, such as rape cases; telling someone to stop will not make them stop. The same goes for armed robbers who break into houses, one will need to protect themselves as well as their families, which the right to bear arms provides. Each citizen must have the right to life and liberty, and bearing arms is one significant liberty.