Fighting Radical Islamic Extremism With Domestic Guns

After the ISIS-inspired Orlando terrorist attack and the worst mass shooting in American history, the liberal minority is screaming for gun bans that have yet to prove a positive mark on gun violence and terrorism in the homeland. The Obama Administration and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton fail to acknowledge the real motive behind the killings. Though, it is a fact that radical Islamic extremism brutally ended the lives of 49 people at the Purge night club. President Obama’s fraudulent representations of many similar situations is indicative of the administration’s war of political correctness and tantamount to the “Ministry of Truth.”

In response to stagnant gun laws, on June 22, Democrats in Congress staged a nearly 26-hour “sit-in” in their own chambers and serenaded each other with civil rights chants and songs. After GOP speaker of he house Paul Ryan (R-WI) pounded his gavel to restore order over his congress, he told reporters after the congressional chaos that he is weary about the future of this debate and the dangerous precedent that was set following what he called a “publicity stunt.”

The Obama Administration’s domestic gun laws have restrained the rights of peaceful citizens to legally obtain and carry firearms. Contrary to the stringent policy, shootings have not decreased. In conjunction with a woefully inadequate immigration policy, ISIS sympathizers have infiltrated the United States. The President’s executive action on “common-sense” gun safety reform requiring background checks for a wider range of buyers does not attack the core of the problem with gun violence and terrorism in America. Criminals are not going to purchase a gun at a retail dealer. Although background checks do have merit, policies restricting legal gun sales will not deter a criminal or a terrorist from getting access to weapons of war.

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has stated that, “we should fight fire with fire.” Although the aggressiveness of the real estate mogul’s possible ban on Muslims coming from areas of war and terrorism into the U.S. is more than likely to quickly fail in Congress, he does have a point. Something needs to be done to minimize terror threats across the U.S. A less draconian gun policy could be the key the fighting radical Islamic extremism as it comes over the borders.

Israel has been fighting a deep-rooted war against its neighbors in the Middle East for thousands of years. In a time when the threat of ISIS-backed terrorism has reached its precipice, the Jewish republic has fared fairly well in the nexus of the bloodshed.

Gun laws in Israel have a history of fluctuating in correlation with the threat of terror in areas around the West Bank from anti-Western allied sponsors of violence. As reported by the Library of Congress, under Israeli law, the issuance of a, “firearms license for private use to other persons requires proof of the existence of a cause that justifies the license. In addition to specific training and mental health requirements, applicants must prove that possession of a firearm is needed based on the location of their residence or employment, the type of occupation they are engaged in, or service in elite Israel Defense Force (IDF) reserve unit.”

Ben Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv is one of, if not the most secure point of transportation in the world. The ISIS-inspired suicide bombing at Istanbul International Airport, which is the most secure point of destination in Europe, Israel may revisit their gun policy insofar as to protect their country. Active duty soldiers could be allowed to carry their sidearm with them at all times, especially in areas where a terror threat is high.

According to the Heritage Foundation, the United States Army had a total end strength of, “1,042,000 soldiers: 490,000 Active soldiers, 202,000 in the Army Reserve, and 350,000 in the Army National Guard,” in 2015. By loosening the firearm restrictions of stateside soldiers, this could add over one million allied-backed security guards on American streets. In areas where there are noted suspicions in regards to terrorism active duty military personnel could be authorized to carry their sidearm with them at all times when in public. Obviously, there would be a need be in accordance with local laws regarding lawful carry in public establishments.

Though, such a policy could enable state-sponsored force to form. The premise on which the Second Amendment was founded upon and its significance meant to protect people. As well,  Military Times reported in 2015 that Pentagon spokesman Air Force Lt. Col. Thomas Crosson stated the Department of Defense, “does not support arming all personnel, a position strengthened after multiple safety reviews following the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, and the mass shooting at the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C., in 2013.”

Arming the public is not the answer to fighting radical Islamic extremism. However, a clever gun policy based on the fundamental rights of the Second Amendment and the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is needed to combat gun-related violence and terrorism.

A landmark case that now guides jurisprudence in regards to firearms and gun policy challenged the Second Amendment and a man’s right to defend himself in his home with a firearm. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Roberts court decided in favor of the defendant, D.C. police officer Dick Anthony Heller, and his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. Heller was denied a permit to have his sidearm in his home for “self-defense.”

In Justice Scalia’s majority opinion, regarding the language of the Second Amendment, he explained that the prefatory clause, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” does not limit the operative clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Although the prefatory clause is the basis on which the operative has substance, it does not limit a citizen’s right to bear arms in their home on account of security and protection.

Additionally, on the account of creating a clear cut gun policy in Congress, the Tenth Amendment also comes into play. The Amendment reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the enumerated powers, state governments would be constitutionally unrestricted to create gun policy in favor of national security in times of increased terrorism threats at home.

Moreover, having firearm policies left to the decision of the state governments, a more efficient policy would be likely to pass in state legislatures. Instead of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) being the sole enforcer of federal gun laws, local and state law enforcement would be able to manage regulations more efficiently. To have a well-regulated militia and less restrictions on self-defense, a lucid approach to domestic gun policy will allow citizens to keep the arms they have. Releasing the government’s grasp on the guns of the republic will provide of safer America, and could help fight radical Islamic extremism.

By Alex Lemieux

Sources:

Heritage Foundation: “2016 Index of U.S. Military Strength”

Military Times: “New Military Gun Policy May Not Mean More Guns on Base”

Library of Congress: “Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: Israel”

Oyez – IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law: “District of Columbia v. Heller”

Originally published by Millennial Ascent  

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s