Cole Tomas Allen ran towards the hall of the Washington hotel where the White House Correspondent’s dinner was in progress on April 25. As he went through a security check point he was challenged by security personnel. A firefight ensued. Allen was overpowered. Meanwhile President Donald Trump, First Lady Melanie Trump and Vice President JD Vance, who were attending this most prestigious event in Washington’s social calendar, were whisked to safety. Many aspects of this event have attracted wide comment in the US and the rest of the world. What has not is the easy availability of firearms to US nationals under US laws which enables some to stage shooting incidents. 

The subject of guns comes up whenever there is a dastardly shooting in schools, colleges, offices and public places and scores of innocent lives are lost. But such is the entrenched influence of the arms lobby and many US nationals’ addiction to firearms that no President or others in the country’s public life have been able to have the US Congress and States Legislatures pass laws that would limit the number of guns that are with private individuals. Why is this so? Where does the legal justification for gun laws lie in the US system?

The second amendment of the US constitution states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. This amendment came into effect upon ratification in December 1791. All through these 235 years the US Supreme Court has held that US citizens have an inherent right to keep arms. It has gone so far as to endorse the view that individuals can carry arms for self-defense in public. As gun laws are both federal and state the legislature of States have followed the Second Amendment and have also passed laws on guns. These laws by current international practice on the possession of firearms by individuals can only be called lax.

The second amendment was enacted during an era when the US was in its early formation. Its political leaders were concerned with the concentration of power in a central authority which may lead it to impose its will on the federating States even in violation of the constitution. Hence, the mention of constituent State militias which would be composed of its people who would possess arms and could be called upon by the State for military service. That situation does not exist at all anymore and with that the natural rationale and thrust of this amendment does not stand. However, judicial verdicts have overlooked the amendment’s inherent purpose and only focussed on the second part which gives individuals the right to possess and carry arms.

Generally US gun laws are liberal. Restrictions are placed on convicted criminals and those of insane mind on possessing firearms. Some background checks are required before a person can buy a firearm but there is no system of an administrative officer specifically issuing a license to a person as is the Indian practice before he/she can purchase weapons. Some restrictions are also placed on possessing assault and automatic weapons. However, these do not generally apply to semi-automatic guns.

Thus, Cole Tomas Allen had a legally acquired . 38 semi-automatic pistol and a legal 12 bore shotgun when he entered the hotel. He is a resident of California. He was able to bring these weapons all the way across the continental US to Washington. That too illustrates how lax US firearm laws are. This is unlikely to change because the arms lobby is ever vigilant to quash any attempt to change firearms laws. The body that is the vanguard of the arms lobby is the National Rifle Association.

The Association which was established in 1871 had the objective of making persons better marksmen for hunting. It was also politically neutral. However, as a number of political assassinations in the 1960s brought about popular demands for gun control, the Association turned into a lobbying group for the right of individuals to possess arms. It aligned with right wing policies associated with the Republican party. It became a powerful lobbying group and was behind a number of political action committees. It actively supported or denounced candidates in the elections.

The basic argument which is used by opponents of gun control is that guns do not kill, people do. Hence, gun control restricts the right of persons who are normal and use firearms responsibly; the focus of society should be on spotting persons prone to violence and treating them and restricting them from possessing guns. This is a specious argument. It overlooks the basic proposition that it is the responsibility of every state to secure its people and the easy availability of guns makes that more difficult. Hence, restrictions of the availability of guns for the security of the public is justified. Most countries accept this proposition and do not allow guns to be sold freely to the public and for people to carry them on their person with the freedom which is there in the US.

The gun industry is rich and is loath to accept laws that will curtail its money making. It has effectively intervened in the political process and not even the deaths of children in mass shootings in schools has eroded its political influence. Allen’s foray into the White House Correspondent’s dinner should have questions on US gun controls but it has not. This holds a mirror to the US and its fondness for guns.