Last Tuesday, President Barack Obama enacted new executive actions aimed at mitigating mass shootings, suicides and killings across the country. The executive actions would require sellers at gun shows to conduct background checks on buyers and hire more FBI agents to conduct research. The president also encouraged greater accountability in domestic violence cases to and help monitor and track lost guns.  Chris D. Cox, the executive director of the National Rifle Association, similarly claimed the president’s actions would do little to protect the public and accused him of “engaging in political rhetoric instead of offering meaningful solutions.” Do you believe Obama’s efforts will effectively lessen gun violence in the United States, and are there any other steps or policies that the administration should pursue? 

Alex Montgomery HS M.P.P. ’17 

The responsibility of reducing gun violence should have never fallen on the shoulders of one single individual or system of government in the first place. While the measures proposed by President Barack Obama appear to be a well-intended effort toward lessening gun violence, I hope to see more efforts from various systems of government addressing intersectional structures enabling gun violence. Considering historically how the burden of U.S. laws and policies has been systematically and disproportionately levied upon the shoulders of marginalized communities victimized by white imperialist, capitalist and patriarchal systems, the eradication of gun violence must be addressed through radical racial, gender, religious and economic justice — all of these informing various levels of political justice and fairness. Additionally, the immediate association between mental health and gun violence stigmatizes and criminalizes individuals suffering from behavioral health concerns while simultaneously removing the accountability of gun sellers, buyers and beneficiaries (e.g. NRA) from their roles in enabling gun violence. What ultimately has to change are not just the guns themselves,  an excellent recommendation that President Obama makes, but also the systems that perpetuate gun violence in the first place.

Alex Montgomery is studying Public Policy of Behavioral Health at the Heller School. 

Noah Coolidge ’16 

The ease of purchasing a gun in many parts of the United States, even with a criminal record, is an international embarrassment and a major public safety hazard. According to the fact-checking website PolitiFact.com, the president’s actions will tighten the requirements concerning who is required to conduct background checks on would-be buyers. Gun stores are already required to get a federal license and are required to conduct such background checks, but the law allows private sellers to sell guns without such a license. However, the law does not define what a private seller is. The president’s executive action simply provides this definition and, in doing so, prevents irresponsible sellers from selling to those who would do harm to others. The argument, as put by the NRA and Republican presidential hopefuls, is that people should be able to sell guns without a license and that the federal government should not be involved. The ease of transport of guns between states with differing requirements, however, means that a uniform standard is necessary.

Noah Coolidge ’16 is a student leader for Brandeis for Bernie.

Shaquan McDowell ’18

The orders as emphasized by the president are to produce more effective means for the regulation of gun sales. This will produce sufficient paper trails for those in the market of selling guns. It creates legal parameters that make it more difficult for guns to end up in the wrong hands. This, however, is contingent on the following of legal avenues by the individuals who purchase guns. This is what the GOP focuses on. Ultimately, both parties are correct. Harsher requirements for possesion of firearms does equate to less utilization of firearms — it is inarguable. This is not a call for “taking all our guns.”  This is also not sufficient enough in preventing gun violence at large.  Harsher acquisition of firearms by legislative measures does not mean they disappear. Rather than aiming to eliminate guns, we must address their pervasiveness in our society and aim to educate the citizenry on their appropriate utilization. 

Shaquan McDowell is the co-president and co-founder of the Purple Party. 

Prof. Andreas Teuber (PHIL)

Even if President Barack Obama could push gun control politically his biggest hurdle is constitutional. In 1976, the District of Columbia passed a tough gun control law banning the possession of a handgun in one’s home. In a 5-4 decision the US Supreme Court decided for the first time in its history that the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” and it struck down the law. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) was a serious blow to gun-control advocates and to what Obama can do by Executive Action. The decision was thought to be a victory for the gun-rights lobby. But it gave proponents of gun-control something to cheer about. Although th e Court makes plain that states and the federal government may pass no law that prohibits citizens from the possession and carrying of guns in self-defense, it did not include laws regulating gun ownership, among them, “bans on carrying concealed weapons, barring guns from schools and government buildings, and putting conditions on gun sales.” So whatever else we may think, one thing’s clear: Obama’s executive order passes constitutional muster.

Prof. Andreas Teuber (PHIL) is a professor of Philosophy and is teaching Philosophy of Law this Spring semester.