Neal W. Jarnagin
English 106, Section D
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Major Paper #2
November, 1993. Colin Ferguson walked into a seedy thirty-five dollar a night motel and
asked for a room in Long Beach, California. He stayed for three weeks. He was a good tenant,
quiet, reserved, and always paid his bill on time. He only needed 15 days though for that is all
the time required to wait to purchase a handgun in the state of California. Over the next few
days with weapon in hand, Mr. Ferguson drove across the country to Long Island, New York. On
December 7th, he boarded a commuter train to Nassau County. Once the train entered Nassau he
began to open fire with the Ruger P-89, nine millimeter, semi-automatic pistol he had bought
while in California. Before he was done, six people would be dead and nineteen others would be
injured. The only reason it wasn’t more is because while he was reloading his pistol for the third
time, three passengers overpowered him and held him to the ground until police arrived. While
his only motive was pure hate for white people, much of what happened that day could have
With the violent crime rate rapidly growing in states with more restricted gun laws, the need
for more liberal gun laws is necessary now more than ever. Imagine what could have been
prevented if one or more law abiding citizens had been carrying a concealed weapon on that
fateful day. Could the lives of six people been saved or the lives of 19 others not have been
changed for the worst? While no one can be absolutely sure what would have occurred, in
today's fearful climate every life would most certainly have been saved. Therefore, both state
and federal governments along with the National Rifle Association need to work together
Jarnagin 2
and compromise their viewpoints in order to make the United States a safer place to live.
With any and all gun control arguments, the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States comes into question. This amendment cannot logically be argued for its vagueness
is enough to keep lawmakers and lawyers in the courtroom for a lifetime. The Second
Amendment or the right to bear arms amendment reads as follows: "a well-regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed."(Mount) The Second Amendment in fact has yet to be incorporated as many
other amendments have. The Privileges and Immunities Clause, which has been interpreted as
applying to the Bill of Rights states that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its
jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws." (Mount) In other words, a State may be as
organizations’ rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. Take for example, a
private country club. While a state may have no restriction whatsoever on concealed handguns it
is completely lawful for the country club to ban concealed handguns from its premises. The
Second Amendment therefore could be considered null and void if a state so chooses it.
The primary argument of the amendment is simply one of syntax. Those individuals and
organizations seeking greater gun control argue that the amendment was specifically designed
for the use of militias while our country was still new. As militias have become extinct, they
believe so should the right to bear arms. On the other hand proponents of more liberal laws
believe the second half of the amendment that specifically states "the right of the people to keep
Jarnagin 3
and bear arms." and should not be infringed in any way. (Mount) Historically speaking, the
attitudes of Americans in the 1790’s were much different than they are today. Freestanding
armies were mistrusted as they had been used to overthrow governments and monarchies in
Europe. Therefore, militias were needed to prevent attacks from bandits, Indians, and other
states militias, as these were growing more common. Many states even had laws requiring men
of age to own a gun and supplies to fire that gun in time of need. As our country's freestanding
army grew, the militia developed into what we know today as the National Guard. No longer
were citizens required or requested to take up arms in defense of the state. Interestingly enough
however, the U.S. Code still recognizes the unorganized militia as an entity. While the argument
draws on, its impact is already fiercely impacting the rate of crime in the nation.
Currently, the state of Florida does not require a permit to purchase a handgun, register the
said firearm, or require the owner to be licensed prior to owning it. The state does however
require a permit to carry the weapon concealed. Those individuals that have been convicted of a
felony, are drug addicts, alcoholics, mentally incompetent, or are vagrant are not allowed to own,
possess or fire any firearm whatsoever. Otherwise, any individual over the age of 18 may
purchase a handgun after a three day waiting period. There are exceptions to the rule when it
comes to the carrying or concealing of a handgun without a license however, and for this reason
the state of Florida has been widely reported on. While in the state, you are not required to have
a license to conceal in your home or place of business, while driving to or from a shooting range,
or while hunting, or traveling in your own vehicle. While under recent scrutiny regarding how
relaxed Florida's gun laws are, most have been in effect since 1987. Their laws regarding the
carrying of a concealed weapon are some of the most relaxed in the nation with only a request
Jarnagin 4
required and a statement to you will only use the weapon in self defense. Furthermore, Jeb Bush
recently signed into law that there is no longer a "duty to retreat." In other words, if you are
attacked in any place to you have lawful right to be, you may stand your ground and "meet force
with force" and if necessary deadly. (Fortifying) Many opponents and proponents alike worry
that this new law will give individuals the false idea that if you feel threatened, it is o.k. to shoot
and kill if necessary any individual they feel threatened by. Ultimately, the change in crime rates
because of the new law has been minimal. In 1995 Florida had a population of 14,142,000
people. 58,408 acts of violent crime were committed during that year or .41%. Ten years later in
2005 the population increased to 17,789,864 with 125,957 acts of violent crime or .71%. (Crime
1995, Crime 2005.) Based on these numbers, Florida has not imposed the correct and laws.
Many of the states had similar results in those 10 years. Some of the other states with relaxed
and laws also showed an increase such as Texas who went from .21% in 1995 to .53% in 2005.
Arizona had .25% of the population experiencing violent crime in 1995 and .51% in 2005. The
only state with relaxed and laws that showed a decrease was that of Connecticut that had a .31%
violent crime rate in 1995 and a .28% rate in 2005. (Crime 1995, Crime 2005). In fact, most
states had an increase in their violent crime rate in those 10 years regardless of their gun laws.
While everyone seems to have an answer to reduce the amount of crime in the nation, they seem
The National Rifle Association, one of the primary advocates of fewer gun laws, was
established in 1871 by 2 Union soldier officers who wanted to "promote and encourage rifle
shooting on the scientific basis." Today the NRA considers itself as "a major political force and
Jarnagin 5
as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment Rights." (A Brief History) According to
an article dated the 26th of September of this year by the NRA, violent crime has had a 30 year
low yet the number of privately owned guns has increased to an all time high, and continues to
rise by approximately 40 million a year. They are also reporting an increase in the right-to-carry
states from 10 in 1987 to 40 today and that those states have on average a 22% lower violent
crime rate. (More Guns) The NRA prides itself on knowing that the "assault weapon” ban
expired in 2004 that was imposed by Bill Clinton while still in his presidency. Hence it is now
legal to purchase semi-automatic assault rifles within the United States. Furthermore, their gun
rally held less than 20 miles and only one day after the Columbine shootings in Colorado made
them look as though they were looking for more shock publicity than anything else.
On the other hand, the Brady Campaign prides itself as being "the largest national, non-
partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence." (Our Mission) They
also state in their mission statement that "the Brady Center believes that a safer America can be
achieved without banning all guns." (Our Mission) As you scroll through their internet site, you
find that they may not be very honest to themselves let alone the American public. You can
plainly see that the organization wants all guns out of the United States. You can find your own
states report card on the state laws regarding gun control. Florida received an F+, Texas received
a D -, Arizona received a D, and the only states that received higher than the B+ were those with
complete concealed weapon bands. (Florida, Arizona, Texas) "Overall, 32 states received a
grade of ‘D’ or ‘F’ for the 2005 report card." (State Legislatures) They also report the exact
opposite of the National Rifle Association in regards to crime rates and the United States. They
report that violent crime actually rose in 27% of the states that relaxed their concealed weapons
Jarnagin 6
laws. (Concealed Truth) In the long run these entities need to decide how long they will fight the
Compromise is the key in the issue of gun control. As the states and/or federal government
don't seem to be able to afford a larger and better trained police force, it is up to the citizens to
protect one another. Similar to the neighborhood watch programs that began in the 1980s, we
need more competent, responsible, stable individuals with handguns on the streets. Handguns
are not only use as mechanisms of self defense but also deterrents of crime. If Colin Ferguson
knew the two or three individuals on that commuter car could possibly be carrying a weapon,
would he have opened fire? Since criminals perform crimes with the intent of not getting caught,
logically, the answer is no. Not only does his country need more handguns on the street, we need
safer handguns and safer people to operate them. Technology is available today in which
handguns can be fingerprint imprinted so that only the individual with a fingerprint imprinted on
the weapon can fire it. Every fingerprint is then fed into either a state or federally run database
so that every firearm and every firearm owner is registered. States implementing a law requiring
all guns to be equipped with this feature will drastically reduce its number of accidental
shootings and the black marketing of weapons. Furthermore, as every barrel of every weapon is
different, the gun itself has its own "fingerprint." When purchasing a weapon, the gun is
"fingerprinted" and added to the exact same database. This will assist law enforcement officials
with the conviction of individuals who fire their weapons maliciously. Lastly, a mandatory
safety training course should be required for every individual firing a weapon. Those individuals
requesting a concealed weapons license should go through training geared more towards
Jarnagin 7
personal defense. Every member of the military and police force go through very similar
While the costs of such programs would be in the billions of dollars, the costs need to be
deferred to the gun owner. Through gun taxes and fees programs like these can be bought and
paid for as the weapons are sold. Ultimately, if someone wants to own a gun, they're going to
However set in their ways both the Brady Campaign and the National Rifle Association are, at
some point they're going to have to compromise and make concessions to one another. The less
they bicker about Second Amendment Rights and statistics that just don't add up, the sooner they
can truly begin to make a difference in both the security of our nation and the security of our
communities. Had just one person been trained to stop an armed gunman through utilizing a
weapon of his own or through brute strength, six people may still have their lives and another 19
may not have to contend with sleepless nights with memories of a Nassau commuter train.
Jarnagin 8
Works Cited
<http://www.nra.org/aboutus.aspx>
Toufexis, Anastasia. “A Mass Murderer’s Journey Toward Madness.” Time. 20 Dec. 1993.
<http://www.stategunlaws.org/viewstate.php?st=AZ&choose_state=Go>
“Concealed Truth, Concealed Weapons Laws and Trends in Violent Crime in the United States.”
<http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=conctruth&menu=gvr>
“Crime in the United States, 1995.” Federal Bureau of Investigation. 20 Oct. 2006
<http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/95CRIME/95crime4.pdf>
“Crime in the United States by State, 2005.” Federal Bureau of Investigation. Sept. 2006. 20
<http://www.stategunlaws.org/viewstate.php?st=FL&choose_state=Go>
<http://www.nraila.org//Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=188>
<http://crime.about.com/od/murder/p/frguson.htm>
<http://nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007>
Jarnagin 9
Mount, Steve., “Constitutional Topic: The Second Amendment.” The U.S. Constitution Online.
<http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/index.php?pagename=mission>
“State Legislatures are Failing to Protect Kids from the Dangers of Illegal Guns.” Brady
<http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/reportcards/2005/>
<http://www.stategunlaws.org/viewstate.php?st=TX&choose_state=Go>
“U.S. Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13.” Find Law. 20 Oct. 2006
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/10/subtitles/a/parts/i/chapters/13/sections/
Section_311.html>