Generally, when it comes to gun crimes, those pulling the trigger or who actually committed some form of gun law violation are responsible to pay the price for their offense. Depending on the state, the penalty for gun crimes can range from misdemeanor to felony offenses, with many suspects facing the possibility of spending years in jail. Among the many types of gun crimes include illegal possession, license violations, assault with a deadly weapon, and murder.
However, many believe that not only those who committed the crime should pay the price, but the companies actually selling the guns should be held liable as well – especially for shooting crimes. Enter Hillary Clinton.
The Democratic presidential candidate has decided to modify her platform on firearms in the wake of the tragic Oregon school shooting, which resulted in the deaths of eight students and a teacher. Clinton recently unveiled a proposal for new gun control laws, which could lead to mixed views with the public.
The proposition involves abolishing laws that are in place to protect gun manufacturers and sellers from being sued by the victims of a shooting. If elected, Clinton also plans to use her power as president to improve the method of running background checks at gun shows prior, which are done prior to clearing a prospective buyer for purchase. She also intends to ban domestic violence convicts from being able to purchase firearms altogether.
“I will try every way I can to get those guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them,” said Clinton during a rally in New Hampshire. “We need to prevent these kinds of terrible crimes that are happening.”
But while many would agree with Clinton, there are a large number of Americans who oppose tighter gun control laws, especially to gun makers and sellers.
It is the right of every American, as stated in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to “keep and bear arms” – a right that should never be infringed. Yet, many attempt to modify these established citizen rights under the guise that they will help lower crime rates.
Unfortunately, when it comes to gun control, the only people that tend to be affected negatively are those who possess firearms legally as a method of self-protection. These individuals abide by the law, obtain whatever permits are necessary in their state of residence, and do not engage in any illegal practices.
Meanwhile, on the opposite end of the spectrum, there are people who will obtain firearms – throughout whatever means necessary – and may engage in numerous illegal practices or may even commit gun crimes.
Despite Clinton’s well-meaning attempts to reduce the rate of gun crime, it is fairly obvious that anyone who has no qualms about committing an offense with a firearm will completely disregard any gun control laws and bypass these laws by obtaining firearms in an illegal manner.
To what extent Clinton will limit future gun purchases if elected is still unknown, however, just because an individual commits a domestic violence offense or fails a background check due to any prior conviction doesn’t mean that they will shoot someone.
Unfortunately, many people who have previously been convicted of crimes are automatically discriminated against. A number of individuals with criminal records – even a mild record or an offense that was committed in youth – often become primary suspects in a crime just because of their past. It is in every person’s best interest, if previously convicted, to consult with a criminal defense lawyer if they suspect their rights have been violated.