I am in favor of proposition 63 because it will regulate the current ammunition in stores and have the consumers go through more precautious steps to purchase ammunition in California. The proposition prohibits the selling and storing of high-capacity magazines in any home or store in the state. Moreover, the people and businesses looking to sell ammunition will require a one year permit from the California Department of Justice in order to sell their ammunition. Additionally, consumers will also be required to have a four year permit from the California Department of Justice in order to purchase ammunition. This permit will be checked by the dealers and verified by the department to check if the buyer can purchase the ammunition. Most of all, people purchasing ammunition will have been required to have had a background check before they could purchase in store. Ultimately, the purpose of proposition 63 is to ban high-capacity ammunition and prevent ammunition and firearms to fall in the wrong hands in California.
Imagine going back a few years, sitting in your kindergarten class learning how to read and suddenly a man in a dark black costume breaks down the door and opens fire; seconds later blood is spewed about the wall, your teacher is dead, and all the children around you are crying. It is situations like this that caused House Bill 60 to be created. This bill “ allow(s) residents who have concealed carry permits to take guns into some bars, churches, school zones, government buildings and certain parts of airports”. (Sayers and McLaughlin) This guns everywhere law should be protected, and everyone should
“The second amendment of The United States Bill of Rights is my concealed weapons permit, period.”- Ted Nugent. Saving lives one by one starts with limiting the purchase, sale, and use of guns in America. According to Alexander Lee, the political and social debate over the question of how much gun control is appropriate and it has been regularly discussed within the last decade. Shootings such as Sandy Hook, and Tucson shootings have raised the government’s awareness on guns and possible restrictions and regulations. Gun talks are discussed with the question, “Will controlling guns cut back on violent crime rates?” Although many guns are open to be sold to the public over 18, there are traditional gun laws that limit who can own them. These laws include sell restrictions to the mentally disabled, the age in which you can obtain a gun, background checks, and dishonorably discharged military personnel. Gun control laws could have a positive effect in America by reducing homicide rates, but at the same time, citizens still have the right to bear arms under the second amendment under the U.S constitution. Gun control laws do not mean the absolute confiscation of guns, but rather reduce the amount of power a gun and the amount of ammo that a gun can hold.
With the Gun Control Law, it would reduce gun deaths. I know this because first of all, reported by “ProCon.org” guns are rarely used in self defense situations. About 11,000 homicides happen a year, meaning death by firearms (guns). If we had the Gun Control Law it would hold back many gun deaths (homicides) from happening
House Bill 75 was first introduced February 19, 2015. At this point in time, there have been no further movements with this bill, it’s status stays at Introduced (“House Bill 75,” February 19, 2015). The primary sponsor of this bill is Representative Bill Patmon. On February 25, 2015, This bill was introduced to the committee. Presently, the committee assignment is the House State Government (“House Bill 75,” February 19, 2015). There have been news stories about the complication society faces with gun control.
Taken together, the new laws will add a host of restrictions for California’s more than 6 million gun owners, from where you buy your ammunition to how you store your guns and who can borrow them.
Banding guns will reduce violence. Will stablish order for Chicagoans. Stricter laws with more severe punishment be and reinforcement of these laws will make a person think twice before getting their hands on a gun and breaking the law.
I proposed this change because I believe by amending the constitution in a way that I mentioned we may not able to promise that no mass shooting will happen in the U.S, but this new amendment for sure stop many mass shootings and gun violence to occur.
The debate for gun reform is at a boiling point, because of the mass shootings that have been mercilessly tearing bullet-sized holes through the fabric of the American people, for the past 10, plus years. As a people, we can no longer sit idly by, without demanding change in the form of gun legislation, that would protect, we the people, while learning in classrooms, worshiping freely at church, or while attending country music festivals. Although
Having this law allows the federal government, state government and local government to share control over the same geographic region. It enables both the state government and the national government to increase protection against gun violence by ensuring that only mentally fit individuals are allowed to own guns. Furthermore, inter-state sharing of information on who should own guns and who should not increases chances of the federal government and state government to work together to improve state and national security. Improving security benefits people at local, state and national levels of government hence putting this new law in place serves as an example of
In 1971, the 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, granting eighteen-year-olds the right to vote. Before this landmark decision, citizens of the United States “had to be at least 21 years old” in order to cast their vote in an election (National Constitution Center, n.d.). It was the escalation of the Vietnam War that led to this expansion of voting rights. During the Vietnam War, thousands of eighteen-, nineteen-, and twenty-year-old men were drafted into military service.
The 13th Amendment, created out of the ashes of the American Civil War, declared that “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." It was an end to the harsh cruelty that was brought upon African Americans for generations; however, a loophole exists within a simple phrase: “except as a punishment for crime…”. Even though all Americans are considered free under the 13th Amendment on paper, in reality this cannot be further from the truth as people were still considered a slave to the state if they committed a crime. Over time though, this “hands-off” doctrine approach gradually started to shift throughout the 1960s and 70s because the Civil Rights Movement stretched far beyond just African Americans. For prisoners, it was a justifiable call to action for basic human rights.