|
Abstract
|
By the numbers, America has a problem with guns. In 2017 alone, 14,542 people were killed by firearms in homicides. This level of annual American firearm fatalities is unbelievable to people in Japan, where gun deaths are almost unheard of. When one considers that only three gun homicides in all of 2017 occurred in Japan, its strict gun control laws present a stark contrast to the enormity of America's annual firearms fatalities. It is easy to see that Japan's extremely tight regulation of guns results in extremely low deaths from guns. This does not, however, mean that the United States can or should adopt a simple copy and paste approach to Japan's gun control laws. Even with the disparity in firearms deaths, the corresponding disparities in each nation's history, culture, and law need to be considered.
On the one hand, the depictions of the role of firearms in American culture throughout its history have left a perception that "[t]he right to keep and bear arms is not a 1791 anachronism. It is alive in the hearts and minds of the American people." On the other hand, perhaps Americans too often picture a romanticized version of the rugged colonial pioneer blazing his way across the New World with pistols at the hip and rifle in hand. The truth may have been less glamorous. Firearms at the time were not only cumbersome, but Americans now think. Rather than an America born of individual arsenals, it is argued that the "individual right to keep and bear private arms is not rooted in early-American traditions, but is an anachronism imposed on history by modern gun rights activists."
Regardless of the historical interpretation, firearms play a prominent role in American society by way of the Second Amendment to its constitution: "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." Like the interpretation of the importance of guns in American history, the language of the Second Amendment itself has been subject to different interpretations and meanings. This is in no small part due to the fact that the language of the Second Amendment is anything but crystal clear. "With its odd syntax, the Second Amendment gives the whiff of an urgent, impassioned point being made in a long forgotten argument." Yet that odd statement has played a pivotal role in the history of the United States of America, and the right of its people to bear arms for self-protection. It also serves as a definitive barrier against incorporating a system of gun control legislation similar to Japan. While Japanese gun control does not fit the American model, it can and should serve as an example of the low fatality results America should strive for, while providing some examples of proactive measures to reduce fatalities in a manner that is constitutionally and culturally compatible...
Since the advent of viable 3D printed firearms, announced by the introduction of Defense Distributed's Liberator in 2013, the public has grappled with this remarkably alien technology. In providing an outlet for creative expression and an avenue through which individuals may exercise their Second Amendment rights, the 3D printing of firearms seemingly champions the first two freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Conversely, the propensity of 3D printed firearms to explode given the lack of quality assurance in the manufacturing process, coupled with their undetectable, untraceable, and clandestine nature make these weapons dangerous to those who wield them and to the public at large. Given the futility of the current federal firearms regulations in dealing with this threat, strong and sensible regulation is needed to address this issue. The adoption of the 3D Printed Gun Safety Act of 2019 and its ban on the sharing of CAD files that are able to automatically program a 3D printer to produce or complete a firearm is a constitutionally permissible exercise of authority that will assist in addressing the issue.
Language: en |