Gun control has been a controversial topic these past few years as many citizens are pushing for more gun control laws while gun supporting groups such as the NRA present a strong opposition. In this article, author Bryan Schatz describes how Proposition 63 passed after 63 percent of California citizens voted for its enactment. However, interests groups such as the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association are prepared to fight against the increase in gun control laws. Despite the increase in gun control measures, the California Rifle & Pistol Association were not particularly surprised at the enactment of Prop 63, given that the measure is similar to legislation passed earlier on in the year. In July, Governor Jerry Brown passed legislation that banned the possession of magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, made the sale of certain semi-automatic rifles illegal, and requires background checks when purchasing ammunition. Prop 63 outlined many of the same things and added a requirement that gun owners reported lost or stolen guns. It also made gun thefts a felony and created a system to take away guns from felons. Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, explained that many gun supporters did not fight earnestly against prop 63 because they wanted to concentrate their efforts on electing Donald Trump who would appoint court justices on the Supreme Court that are gun-friendly. Furthermore, the NRA and the association plan on taking legal action against Prop 63 and trying each of its individual laws in court.
Connection: The opposition the California Rifle & Pistol Association are planning demonstrates the power of large interest groups and how it can influence public policy. It also demonstrates how if a group is dissatisfied with a particular legislative outcome, they can still have their voice heard through other methods such as in courts or (as the NRA is doing) supporting politicians that share their same view point.
Questions:
1. In what ways is the NRA opposition an example of pluralism or hyperpluralism?
2. At the end of the article, Schatz describes the conflict between Democrats Newsom and De Leons. What does their conflict say about the effects of pork barrelling and credit claiming during a political election? Is the desire for credit leading to more conflict and potential corruption?
3. In the overall scope of gun violence and gun control laws, is Prop 63 too strict? Should it have been even stricter? In your opinion, is the NRA valid in opposing the proposition?
Connection: The opposition the California Rifle & Pistol Association are planning demonstrates the power of large interest groups and how it can influence public policy. It also demonstrates how if a group is dissatisfied with a particular legislative outcome, they can still have their voice heard through other methods such as in courts or (as the NRA is doing) supporting politicians that share their same view point.
Questions:
1. In what ways is the NRA opposition an example of pluralism or hyperpluralism?
2. At the end of the article, Schatz describes the conflict between Democrats Newsom and De Leons. What does their conflict say about the effects of pork barrelling and credit claiming during a political election? Is the desire for credit leading to more conflict and potential corruption?
3. In the overall scope of gun violence and gun control laws, is Prop 63 too strict? Should it have been even stricter? In your opinion, is the NRA valid in opposing the proposition?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe NRA, in many ways, better exemplifies hyper-pluralism than pluralism because of its overwhelming power and influence, especially when it comes to public policy. Because of this great influence the gun lobby has, it is often able to block gun control laws in Congress, thereby showing how powerful interest groups can create policy gridlock. These powerful and influential interest groups can easily sway politicians in their favor.
ReplyDeleteIn recent times, the NRA has been displaying its power as one of the strongest interest group in Washington by opposing pretty much any gun regulations anyone tries to pass. Due to the amount of power they wield, I would describe this group as a hyper-pluralist one, since they have influence over so much gun related legislation that it makes it almost impossible to pass anything restricting the 2nd Amendment.
ReplyDeleteWhile the right to own guns is a privilege many Americans are entitled to, the problems that guns cause is undeniable. The policies implemented with Prop 63 arent unreasonable, and is a step in the right direction to tighten gun laws. Prop 63 still leaves loopholes for the ownership of guns and won't drastically change much for gun owners.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Fiona. Due to recent increase in gun violence, it is not surprising this proposition was proposed. Though proposition 63 will enforce stricter gun laws, it will overall not change much. It is very easy to obtain guns from other states, which much looser rules. Additionally, the NRA will make sure nothing serious is passed in California since they hold so much power.
DeleteProp 63, known as the safety for all bill, aims to remove illegal guns. The NRA, however, argues that the bill will be ineffective. They say that law enforcement officers found problems with the actual bill. Ultimately, the NRA is the most persistent and powerful interest group, making it unsurprising that they would oppose this proposition. They are, however, correct in saying that there are loopholes to the bill, which would still allow guns to fall into the wrong hands.
DeleteI believe that while Americans do certainly have a right to own guns, harder background checks as well as restrictions on ammunition should be looked at. I believe that prop 63 isn't too harsh on gun owners as it is still possible for them to buy guns and ammunition it would just take more time. People that really want to use guns for recreational purposes would still be able to do so.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nick that just because prop 63 makes the process of getting a gun more strict, it in no way inhibits law abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right. Prop 63 protects the public from those who plan to use guns for harmful purposes. Also, the requirement to report stolen guns allows for law abiding citizens to be cleared from a crime in the event that a crime was committed with their gun.
DeleteGoing off of what Nick and Sam stated, citizens remain the right to bear arms, however Prop 63 is a step towards making it harder to own a gun. With all the recent shootings, it is absolutely necessary to start doing expanded background checks to ensure the safety of our country. In order to own a gun, it crucial that a citizen demonstrates a behavior and have a background to prove their intent of having one. I think the only way to keep allowing people to continuously purchase guns, there needs to be more strict standards and limitations.
DeleteI completely agree with what Taylor is saying. With the recent occurrences that having been going on in our country it is time to start restricting the easy access to guns. It makes little sense that many young individuals can't drink alcohol or purchase any tobacco products, however, they can go and buy a gun. Maybe if this country wasn't using guns in the ways we are, things would be different. But the poor choices being made show how background checks and Prop 63 are necessary to get a gun.
DeleteThere is really no need for civilians to have assault rifles, especially those which have high-capacity magazines. I think the scope of prop 63 is completely justified, especially with the rise of gun violence across the nation. I think the "Trump effect" of an increased turnout in white male voters may impact gun legislation in the future, especially since the opposition to prop 63 became organized and will most likely work with the NRA, one of the most powerful interest groups in the nation, to further limit gun restrictions.
ReplyDeleteWhile there may not be a need for civilians to have high-capacity magazines, it is there second amendment right and banning certain portions of that opens the door for future legal restrictions. I think increased background checks is a more viable solution.
DeleteIt is difficult to say whether or not Prop 63 should have been stricter. Limiting guns to a certain point could increase crime rates to attain guns to such an extent that the law becomes void. During the prohibitionist era, alcohol was outlawed entirely but that did not stop people from obtaining it illegally. Only crime rates rose, and a similar consequence could occur with guns. While it may not be their intention, the NRA is certainly preventing that from happening. By opposing gun laws, they demonstrate pluralism, and how interest groups can have a say in big government.
ReplyDeleteProp 63 is not too strict. The strictest parts of it already existed in the legislation Jerry Brown passed, and Prop 63 just added some details. I think it's important to require that stolen guns are reported because that will help prevent crimes or even protect the original owner if a crime is committed.
ReplyDeleteIn some sense, Proposition 63 is redundant due to the fact that much of the regulatory policy was already passed in California. Essentially, it was superfluous because of the pre-existing assault weapons ban and magazine bans. With this in mind, Proposition 63 was more likely a political move than one actually intended to reduce gun violence.
ReplyDelete