Lieutenant Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, stood outside of the scene of a "1993 shooting incident that left eight people dead" and pledged to support a 2016 California ballot measure that would strengthen California's already tough assault weapon's policy. Newsom has traditionally been strongly in favor of laws that allow for legal Marijuana use in California. While he “he still supports legalizing marijuana”, his shift in policy support is most likely directly tied to his campaign for reelection in 2016. Newsom has carefully chosen which alliances to keep, reasoning that it is more important to support gun restraint than Marijuana legalization. The proposed gun law “measure will ban possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines, require licenses for ammunition dealers, call for background checks for anyone buying ammunition, make it easier to confiscate weapons from people not allowed to have them and require people to report lost or stolen guns.” Newsom’s newfound support for gun restraint, possibly in lieu of major tragedies that have recently occurred, poses a threat to avid supporters of the 2nd Amendment while also helping him gain voters in favor of gun control.
Do you think it is more important to support Marijuana legalization or gun restraint laws? Do you think it is unconstitutional for the proposed gun law to enact the restrictions mentioned above?
I think that it's more important to support gun restraint laws because that issue is the most directly harmful and has killed so many people. I don't think it's unconstitutional. People have a right to own weapons, but the government has a duty to protect its citizens, which gives them the right to control weapon use, selling, and purchasing.
ReplyDeleteI think it is more important to support gun restraint laws because they can directly promote public safety. I do not think that it is unconstitutional, but rather think that it is necessary. The country has dramatically changed since the time when the Constitution, and even though people should still have the "right to bear arms", a non-strict gun policy threatens public safety. Considering the many shootings and gun abuse related crimes in this country, a new law is needed. The effects could have very good results.
ReplyDeleteI think it is more important to support gun restraint laws because they can directly promote public safety. I do not think that it is unconstitutional, but rather think that it is necessary. The country has dramatically changed since the time when the Constitution, and even though people should still have the "right to bear arms", a non-strict gun policy threatens public safety. Considering the many shootings and gun abuse related crimes in this country, a new law is needed. The effects could have very good results.
ReplyDeleteI am guessing you guys know Newson is running for governor in 2018 ALREADY! http://www.gavinnewsom.com/
ReplyDeletePolitics - it's always politics.
It's definitely more important to support gun restraint laws over marijuana legalization. So far, in 2015, there have been approximately 20 mass shootings in or around schools alone. The state that was most affected by these 2015 massacres was Florida, but California follows close behind. Therefore, this issue is extremely relevant and the number of massacres only seems to be increasing. It's not violating the second amendment because citizens will still be allowed to bear arms, just in a way that will protect citizens more thoroughly.
ReplyDeletePutting the situation in context of recent schools shootings, there is definitely a renewed urgency for stricter gun control laws. While the legalization and regulation of marijuana is a major concern, gun related violence takes precedence because it has a more direct correlation to deaths. From the description, the new regulations are not infringing upon 2nd Amendment rights because they are not outright banning guns altogether, rather they are establishing stricter rules for gun ownership and maintenance
ReplyDeleteI think gun restraint laws are more important than the legalization of marijuana. All over the country the number of public shootings has sky rocketed recently and it is more important to handle this issue before anything else. I don't think its unconstitutional because it isn't banning firearms it is just making it more difficult for ammunition to be bought and sold. Even if the law was unconstitutional, it would bring good for the country because of the growing number of mass shootings.
ReplyDeleteAs well as it seems most people are saying I to think that we should focus more on gun control laws rather than marijuana. Gun control laws can have more of an impact on the safety of the general public. Where as a law against marijuana would only pertain to the safety of the certain few who are affected. While I do agree that people have the right to bear arms... I believe that the new law even though unconstitutional it would make the safety of the general public much more obtainable rather than always having these mass shootings that we are hearing about recently in the media.
ReplyDeleteI believe theirs a dual nature to the issues presented here. Both issues are, in a sense, held back by higher powers: marijuana legalization by public opinion and international agreements, and gun control by the constitution and lobbying groups. As a whole they're not necessarily the best two to compare to each other since they operate in two different spheres, and it would be more appropriate to pair gun control with mental health reform and marijuana legalization with restructuring parts of the judicial system.
ReplyDeleteI feel that gun restraint laws are more important than the legalization of marijuana. The number of shooting in the United Stated recently has been the highest it has ever been. It is not unconstitutional to have restrictions because we are not actually taking the guns away. Guns can affect the whole country, while marijuana only affects a few.
ReplyDeleteGun restraint laws are surely more important than legalizing marijuana. The purpose of legalizing marijuana would be to improve quality of life, while the issue with gun restriction is one of life or death. It is not unconstitutional to restrict guns because protecting the right to bear arms protects few versus restricting guns protects many.
ReplyDeleteGun restraint laws are surely more important than legalizing marijuana. The purpose of legalizing marijuana would be to improve quality of life, while the issue with gun restriction is one of life or death. It is not unconstitutional to restrict guns because protecting the right to bear arms protects few versus restricting guns protects many.
ReplyDeleteWhile both issues are important matters that should be dealt with, they are so different and cause problems in such different degrees that it is hard to compare the two side by side. Overall, gun restrictions have a more significant impact (because of the violence guns cause). However, marijuana legalization (especially in California) is relevant to more people. These issues should be dealt with separately and whether or not he chooses to support one should not depend on the other.
ReplyDeleteIt is not unconstitutional to enact the gun restrictions listed above, because the "right to bear arms" is not being taken away, restrictions are just being created in order to maintain that right while also keeping people safe.
While I think that the potential immediate benefits of gun restraint laws outweigh the potential benefits of marijuana legalization, I don't think it's necessary to compare the two issues, because they really aren't that similar. Marijuana legalization would extend civil liberties for mostly economic reasons, while gun restraint laws would infringe upon civil liberties in an effort to decrease violence. I think that both matters are very important but operate in different spheres.
ReplyDeleteAs people have mentioned above, gun control laws have a larger impact on the majority of society. Guns are more of an immediate threat to individuals than marijuana, and in light of recent events, the issue of gun control has to be addressed. Enacting stricter gun control laws is not unconstitutional because the government is acting in the best interest of people's safety. They are just making it so people who are a threat to the safety of others do not have access to weapons
ReplyDeleteThe new law doesn't directly go against having a gun or having the ammo for said gun, rather the law simply makes the background checks for purchasing and handling a gun more thorough. While it may seem that the new law is infringing upon the rules and regulations set by the 2nd Amendment, it is simply being more precise when it comes to who own, keeps, and handles the gun. It is not prohibiting specific groups or individuals that aren't already prohibited from having a gun. The law is very constitutional, even if he's just appealing to those people nervous about guns due to the recent incidents and tragedies caused by the use of guns in the country.
ReplyDeleteI would definitely think it is better for his campaign to focus more on gun control than marijuana because the people view it as more urgent. Although people in California would love to see marijuana legalized, they don't really care that much right now because they're going to do it no matter what and no one gets in trouble for it. With all the recent shootings that have been happening, people care much more about gun control.
ReplyDeleteI am in favor of this law, and although it would be great to please all the pro-gun people by convincing them that it goes with the 2nd amendment, I would definitely say it does infringe upon 2nd amendments rights. However, I personally believe the 2nd amendment is very outdated and guns are not necessary like they may have been in the 1780s. So although I think it does limit the 2nd amendment to some degree, I believe these types of laws are necessary to protect citizens from gun violence.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think both issues are very important. I agree with Michael about how outdated the 2nd amendment is. The Framers had no idea that "arms" would be high caliber machine guns. Anyhow, both issues are very important and I fail to see why they should be compared. Many people who are getting arrested for drug charges are facing some archaic laws as well.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think both issues are very important and should both be supported, the legalization of marijuana has more benefits and would result in greater change. Legalizing marijuana would free up a lot of space in our jails and cost the tax payers a lot less money. It would also help police officers focus on what really matters (violence). In addition, it is just time to legalize it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that although each issue is important, it was smart of Newsom to put his focus on gun control. With so many accounts of severe gun violence occurring recently, there is clearly a need for reform in the system. I don't see these restrictions as being unconstitutional because they are for the benefit of the people. As Ben and Michael said, the second amendment was written at a time before the evolution of high caliber guns. The framers of the constitution wrote the basic law to protect people's rights, but they could not have anticipated the current situation. Therefore, I think it is the duty of our current politicians to emphasize the reformation of these laws as needed to protect the people.
ReplyDeleteI think that gun restrain laws are more important than marijuana legalization. There have been uncounted deaths from guns and not a single death that is linked directly to marijuana. Also, people will still smoke weed even it is not legalized, so there is much more of a purpose to limit gun usage than to legalize a drug that is practically already legal. This may be a violation of the second amendment, but it may be necessary to crack down on shootings and illegal gun usage as a whole.
ReplyDeleteIt should be more important to implement gun restraint laws because although guns do not kill people they do make the ability to harm someone a lot more accessible. No I believe that guns are a tool designed for killing and the fact that they are available to pretty much anyone does not settle well. Gun restrictions need to be enacted to ensure the safety of the American people.
ReplyDeleteI think the 2 issues are kind of unrelated in trying to compare which one he should focus on more. They're 2 totally different things, and the only thing they really seem to be similar in is how they have become major issues that Americans polarize between. Candidates do the same, loving or hating guns and weed, with no real in between stance, which just goes to show how big party polarization is in America. In regards to the constitutionality of gun control, no one can really say if it is good or bad since there is so much controversy and money tied to it that no one really has the power to change it unless something drastic happens.
ReplyDeleteBoth issues are current and need attention, and are very different so should not be compared to begin with. He has taken clear stance's pertaining both issues. I am exited to see how he handles it.
ReplyDelete