Domains of Gun Politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main article: Gun politics

Various domains of gun politics exist, reflecting rights, responsibilities, restrictions and controls. These can be broken down to international, national, state, community, individual, group, religious and corporate domains. There are highly complex political issues when domains come into relation with others, such as when a civil jurisdiction wishes to establish its rights or restrictions in regards to its national government, or when a religious organization wishes to assert its attitudes and beliefs towards guns against the will of a local government. And of course, there are issues where different boundaries or levels of jurisdiction come into conflict.

1 National
2 State
3 Community
4 Individual
5 Group
6 Religious
7 Corporate
8 See also
9 References

[edit] National

National gun politics usually focus on the rights, responsibilities and restrictions on the armament and use of guns by military or paramilitary armed forces, national police, and other branches of government. They also place rights, restrictions, and responsibilities on their civil populations and groups. Gun politics may also involve special cases, such as politics regarding the use of guns during cases of national emergency or need, civil unrest, internal wars, and rebellions. For example, an article on East Timor asserts in its headline, "Timor needs to disarm population for security" and within the article states "seizing weapons that have fallen into civilian hands is the key to lasting peace."^[1] Regardless of whether one agrees with or disagrees with that assertion, this is an issue addressing guns at the national political level.

[edit] State

State (for purpose of this discussion, any high-level internal divisions of a nation, such as a state, province, domain, region, district, etc.) gun politics involve the rights and restrictions on the armament and use of guns by their military or paramilitary armed forces, state police or other civil services. States may have differing gun politics as a reflection of their own sovereignty within their nation. They may also place rights, restrictions, and responsibilities on their civil populations and groups. For example, in 1707, "an early South Carolina law required militia captains 'to enlist, traine [sic] up and bring into the field for each white, one able slave armed with a gun or lance.'"^[2] Whether one agrees with the law or not, the state in this case gave a clear requirement and responsibility to those wishing to properly fulfill the role of captain of the state militia, and granted the right to bear arms to a slave serving under such a captain.

[edit] Community

Community gun politics (generally lower levels of civil government, such as a village, borough, town, city, or county) generally do not address standing armies, but may have political issues over the use of guns by paramilitary and police forces, as well as civil militias. They may also place rights, restrictions, and responsibilities on their civil populations separate from their state or nation. They may even have standards regarding products that are not guns but related to them, such as ammunition and accessories, or are similar to guns or depict gun violence, such as replicas, toys or games. As an example of local gun politics, in March 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law making it a requirement for all eligible residents to own a gun.^[3] Note the town council needed to ensure its local ordinance complied with other potentially conflicting political domains ("With exceptions duly made for convicted felons, the disabled, and those with religious objections..."). A local police program for gangs to turn in weapons is another example of gun politics at the community level.

[edit] Individual

Individual gun politics are generally a complex relation of an individual or private family's rights, responsibilities and restrictions within the overlapping domains of their nation, internal state and local community, plus international considerations. Individual gun politics are often philosophically contrasted with group or collective rights (see next). In a 2004 Memorandum, it was an opinion stated by the US Attorney General, "The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militia."^[4] Individual gun politics are not limited to laws alone, but also extends to practices and customs, ethics, philosophies, and personal expressions. Individuals may have their own widely diverging, personal, and sometimes contentious political thoughts on guns.

[edit] Group

Groups may also have their own aspects of gun politics. Ethnic groups, clans, political parties, private clubs, independent (non-state-sanctioned) militias, gangs, and other forms of group affiliations may have politics towards guns, both in favor or against their presence or use. Groups may have special legal cases separate from those of the individual, or may have their own collective political positions, ethics and practices towards guns. For example, after a shooting incident, in July 2006, Miami Hurricanes coach Larry Coker made a policy for the team banning the ownership of guns by his players.^[5]

[edit] Religious

Religions and religious organizations are a particular domain of gun politics. They may have official policies, doctrines, dogma, philosophies and interpretations which impact their political views towards guns, either in favor or against. Their gun politics might or might not be focused at legal changes but may focus more on ethical or social behavioral changes and beliefs. The basis for their arguments may be based on dogma and philosophy specific to their belief system. For instance, the Holy See's representative to the UN, Archbishop Celestina Miglore, faced a protest by a group known as the St. Gabriel Possenti Society, opposing the Papal endorsement for the promotion of disarmament.^[6]

[edit] Corporate

Corporate gun politics break down into the rights, responsibilities and restrictions of a) corporations participating in the manufacture and commerce of gun, b) corporations employing guns for security services, either internally for safeguarding corporate personnel and property, or offered as a commercial security service to other parties, or c) employee, customer and visitor policies. Therefore, gun politics of corporations cover myriad classes. Lobbying by a gun manufacturer is very different than a corporation considering liability of its employees actions in the case of firearms possession or use while on the job, and likewise might result in two very different political stances. Corporations might even have varying politics within consortia, blocs and sectors of industry. As a simple example of corporate gun politics, it is against the visitor code of conduct to bring a firearm onto the premises of the Seattle Times, or even have one in a vehicle, unless you are a member of law enforcement.^[7] This is a very different class of gun politics, than a lobbyist for a gun manufacturer attempting to change liability laws, win a government weapons procurement contract or gain approval for overseas sale or manufacturer of their products.