ATF Regulations and Current Events Pushing to Change Them
Student
Institution
Date
ATF Regulations and Current Events Pushing to Change Them
The gun violence burden is significantly high for the urban areas in America. Braga et al. (2012) observe that gunfire kills thousands of Americans annually, with hundreds of thousands more facing injuries and gun threats in assaults and robberies. The supply of firearms that fall into the wrong hands contributes substantially to serious gun violence. Statistics indicate that only one in six firearms used in crime was acquired legally, and a relatively small number of very active criminals commit most of the serious gun violence (Braga et al., 2012). Irvin et al. (2014) note that the current federal regulations and enforcement practices curtail the ability of the federal government to deter the sales of illegal firearms effectively by licensed dealers. Consequently, states have enacted their laws and established an additional layer to effect gun control oversight. The gun dealer procedures that seek to decrease trafficking have proven successful (Irvin et al., 2014), while those designed to control who accesses different kinds of firearms have failed to prevent illegal transfers (Braga et al., 2012). Increased public mass shootings have mandated the push for a change in gun regulations, but maintaining legal firearm trade is impossible because guns end up in criminals’ hands.
The current law and practice for firearm regulation incorporate diverse mechanisms seeking to reduce the misuse of guns. According to Cook and Pollock (2017), the authorities integrate criminal law enforcement with gun commerce regulation and other programs aimed at reducing careless or unlawful use of guns. Both the federal and state guidelines define legal firearm transactions. Significantly, the deals that arm active offenders constitute the “underground gun market” and violate the existing regulations (Cook & Pollock, 2017). Cook and Pollock (2017) argue that the United States (US) is lax in firearm regulation compared with other high-income countries. However, America imposes nontrivial controls of the design, possession, transfer, and use of guns. For example, using a sawed-off shotgun to shoot squirrels at Central Park, New York, constitutes a violation of numerous local, state, and federal laws (Cook & Pollock, 2017). The majority of national efforts for gun control have faced a hurdle in the Supreme Court. Consequently, much of the actions for regulation have happened at the state and local levels. For instance, since the enactment of the 1993 Brady Act, background checks have been implemented to keep firearms out of the criminals’ hands (Cook & Pollock, 2017). The regulations have made it harder for potential offenders with sufficiently serious mental illnesses to buy a firearm from dealers.
Furthermore, states have taken initiatives to enact comprehensive background check (CBC) policies to regulate the transfer of guns. Castillo-Carniglia et al. (2017) assert that the prevailing federal law requires background checks only when a licensed retailer transfers firearms. However, the enactment of CBC policies expand the requirement to nearly all gun transfers, even among private parties, noting that up to 40 percent of transfers made in recent years were private (Castillo-Carniglia et al., 2017). Sometimes, permit-to-purchase (PTP) provisions supplement the CBC regulations, requiring prospective buyers to apply for a permit directly with law enforcement agencies responsible for background check processing. Prohibited individuals can acquire guns in the absence of a CBC policy because they can evade the screening measures by buying from the sources instead of licensed retailers. Federal law already prohibits felons, domestic violence convicts, or those subject to restraining orders, addicts of controlled substances, and individuals with mental defects or with a history of commitment to a psychiatric facility (Castillo-Carniglia et al., 2017). However, the prohibited persons have still obtained firearms through private party transfers, a loophole that expanded CBC requirements can seal. The states of Colorado, Delaware, and Washington have enacted CBC policies, with evidence showing that proper enforcement reduces the private transfers of firearms without passing through background checks.
Additionally, a recent federal move to ban bump stocks represents the government’s efforts to enact gun control regulations. According to Druzin (2019), the Trump administration directed the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) Bureau to reclassify bump stocks as machine guns. The move would make them illegal under the National Firearms Act and require individuals to destroy the ones they own or hand them over to the ATF. Druzin (2019) observes that while machine guns are legal, federal law highly regulates them, with the NFA in 1986 mostly outlawing similar class of weapons. Ownership of bump stocks after the ban would be a felony. The federal regulation intends to reduce the lethal nature of guns because fitting a firearm with a bump stock increases its lead unload (Druzin, 2019). The bump stocks facilitate the conversion of semiautomatic guns into automatic weapons. However, states have not taken any action to supplement the federal government’s move to outlaw a lethal device. The assault-style weapons require more strict control because they pose serious risks for the public. A pairing of the bump stock bans with other measures can make it more difficult for offenders to access or own automatic firearms to commit a crime.
The enactment of the federal and state firearm control policies and regulations is a product of increased mass gun violence. Vizzard (2015) highlights the Columbine High School and Sandy Hook mass shootings and the attempted assassination of US Representative Gabrielle Giffords as some of the events that triggered the calls for firearm legislation. Cook and Pollack (2017) emphasize that the massacres targeting schools and public gatherings have become grim touchstones in public gun violence discourses. The number of victims who fall in the hands of a gunman attracts significant attention of the media and the public, which further influences politics on gun control. Lawmakers also play the political advocacy role in the wake of mass shootings, with some in the states calling for the bans and enhancement of background checks to regulate access to firearms. The highly-publicized nature of the gunman public massacres often provokes heated debates regarding stricter gun control laws.
Moreover, firearm trafficking contributed to the calls for the regulations that govern gun leadership. Webster and Wintemute (2015) report that corrupt or negligent licensed dealers substantially divert firearms to criminals, supplying them with up to 10,000 guns. Nevertheless, the efforts by the ATF to tackle illegal transfers of weapons face significant hurdles courtesy of the federal Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) that became law in 1986 (Webster & Wintemute, 2015). The legislation has weakened the penalties for breaching the record-keeping regulations meant to prevent the diversion of firearms. The failure of the courts to charge unlicensed dealers poses a challenge to tackling trafficking. Consequently, firearms end in the hands of criminals, a fact confirmed by police retrieval of unlicensed guns from crime scenes or criminal suspects. The criminals use some of the illegal weapons to commit homicide, robberies, and assault, thus provoking debates on the need for policies on licensing and the lawful private transfer of guns.
Whereas there is a robust case for the enactment of policies and legislation for gun control, the efforts face significant constitutional challenges in the US courts. Vizzard (2015) cites the involvement of the Supreme Court in taking monumental action responding to the passage of the Brady Law. For example, in District of Columbia (DC) v Heller, the Court invalidated DC’s virtual ban on the possession of a handgun, holding that the Second Amendment confers on the individual the right to possess firearms (Vizzard, 2015). In other words, gun control raises constitutional issues regarding the powers of the state or federal governments to limit the provisions of the constitution. McDonald v Chicago further captures the judicial restraint on state legislations, declaring that the right to bear arms is fundamental (Vizzard, 2015). Hence, any limitation calls for the Court to incorporate the Second Amendment into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, the efforts to prevent gun crime in many cities have motivated proactive police strategies such as the “stop, question, and frisk” encounters disproportionately targeting African American and Latino young men (Cook and Pollock, 2017). The tactic is controversial, and critics have successfully challenged it in the courts as an affront on civil rights, in New York and Los Angeles. Hence, gun control policies face constitutionality challenges that end up rolling back the progress made.
Overall, gun violence represents a significant burden for most US cities, with gunfire killing thousands and injuring more every year. Firearms fall into the wrong hands through illegal transfers, because current federal and state regulations can limit the power of government to control unlawful sales. Nevertheless, some of the present rules and practices apply diverse mechanisms to reduce the misuse of firearms, where authorities seek to define legal gun transactions. Background check policies also aim to regulate the transfer of weapons to individuals capable of committing a crime. Most recently, a ban on bump stocks represents a move to remove assault-style weapons from the hands of criminals. All the gun control efforts follow the increasing cases of public mass shootings that generate substantial discourse in the media and rising cases of firearm trafficking. Nevertheless, the call for regulating firearms raises constitutional issues on the right to bear arms and due process provisions. Anyhow, the success of some regulations and policies in reducing criminal access to guns and the highly-publicized victimization of innocent citizens by shooters will continue to exert more pressure on legislative interventions.
References
Braga, A. A., Wintemute, G. J., Pierce, G. L., Cook, P. J., & Ridgeway, G. (2012). Interpreting the empirical evidence on illegal gun market dynamics. Journal of Urban Health, 89(5), 779-793.
Castillo-Carniglia, A., Kagawa, R. M., Webster, D. W., Vernick, J. S., Cerdá, M., & Wintemute, G. J. (2018). Comprehensive background check policy and firearm background checks in three US states. Injury Prevention, 24(6), 431-436.
Cook, P. J., & Pollack, H. A. (2017). Reducing access to guns by violent offenders. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 3(5), 2-36.
Druzin, H. (2019, Feb. 22). The government says it is not coming for Your Guns, But it Is Coming for Your Bump Stocks. American University Radio. https://wamu.org/story/19/02/22/the-government-says-its-not-coming-for-your-guns-but-it-is-coming-for-your-bump-stocks/.
Irvin, N., Rhodes, K., Cheney, R., & Wiebe, D. (2014). Evaluating the effect of state regulation of federally licensed firearm dealers on firearm homicide. American Journal of Public Health, 104(8), 1384-1386.
Vizzard, W. J. (2014). The current and future state of gun policy in the United States. J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 104, 879.
Webster, D. W., & Wintemute, G. J. (2015). Effects of policies designed to keep firearms from high-risk individuals. Annual Review of Public Health, 36, 21-37.