Montgomery Blair High School's Online Student Newspaper
Wednesday, July 18, 2018 10:05 pm
May 30, 2013

New Maryland gun law beneficial

by Caroline Gabriel, Online News Editor
Maryland governor Martin O'Malley recently signed a weapon restriction law that is one of the strictest weapon restriction laws in the nation. It has been rumored that O'Malley will run for president in the 2016 election. There has been a lot of dissent towards O'Malley's new gun regulation, and this may impede his chances of becoming president. But in the end, Maryland's safety is more worthwhile than a mere four-year presidency.

It has been rumored that Maryland governor, Martin O'Malley, will run for president in the 2016 election. His strict gun regulation may cause conflict with the election. Courtesy of Salon
It has been rumored that Maryland governor, Martin O'Malley, will run for president in the 2016 election. His strict gun regulation may cause conflict with the election.
The new Maryland gun law will add 45 guns to a list of banned weapons and will require potential gun owners to obtain licenses for weapons and provide their fingerprints as part of the application process. The National Rifle Association (NRA) claims that these regulations restrict citizens' Second Amendment rights, the right to bear arms, so they are suing the state of Maryland.

Recent public shootings, such as the Sandy Hook shooting, make this extreme weapon restriction a very noble act. Evidently, the NRA is not successfully making weapons or weapon use safer, so at least all Maryland residents can be extremely safe in Maryland, thanks to O'Malley. Sophomore Alia Helsing agreed that this strict weapon ban is practical in order to ensure citizens' safety. "We don't want another Newtown [incident] to happen, so [O'Malley's gun law] is a good thing," Helsing said.

The Second Amendment text 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 was applicable in 1791 when the amendment was adopted, but today militias are not prevalent–or existent at all—so this law is not relevant to our everyday lives. Helsing agreed that the Second Amendment is not applicable today. "I don't think [O'Malley's gun law] violates the Second Amendment because militias don't exist anymore," Helsing said. Therefore the Second Amendment is outdated and extraneous today. U.S. citizens do not need guns or weapons; they are simply a danger to themselves and others.

Not only does the NRA oppose O'Malley's new gun law, but Republicans do as well. Though the NRA's argument against the new gun law is inapt, there are still many U.S. citizens who agree with the NRA. Republicans' disapproval of the Maryland gun restriction is bound to hinder O'Malley's place in the 2016 election.

Though O'Malley will have the majority of the Democrats' support involving the law and the election, the Republicans still constitute a large chunk of the voting population. With so many against him, he could easily lose his place in the presidential election and nomination. Helsing agreed that Republicans' disapproval of O'Malley and his gun law will set him back in the 2016 presidential nomination and election. "A lot of Democrats will support [O'Malley] but he might not become a nominee because a lot of Republicans oppose gun restrictions," Helsing said. Junior Elana Rombro also feels that members of the NRA and Republicans will not support O'Malley in his candidacy. "He'll have more opposition from NRA members and lobbyists who don't want restrictions on the Second Amendment," Rombro said.

Though some may disagree, this major gun and weapon ban will turn out to be practical in the end. Even though this law may end up costing O'Malley the presidency, it was a wise restriction and all Marylanders should feel safe and grateful.

Share on Tumblr

Discuss this Article

Silver Chips Online invites you to share your thoughts about this article. Please use this forum to further discussion of the story topic and refrain from personal attacks and offensive language. SCO reserves the right to deny any comment. No comments that include hyperlinks will be posted. If you have a question for us, please include your email address or use this form.

  • Slicemaster19 (View Email) on May 31, 2013 at 12:26 AM
    Maybe try doing some research before putting stories on line.

    Currently there are more guns in American society than at ANY time in history. Most estimates put it at 310 million guns, or more. But yet the actual gun homicide rate in the US is near its all time low, and is about 50% less than 1993. Non-fatal gun injuries are nearly 70% lower. And the trends continue downward.

    I am not saying guns make the US safer. That is probably mostly because of increased policing, and better law enforcement training. But it TOTALLY disproves any idea that more guns cause an INCREASE in violence. As much as you might want that to be true, the facts don't support the fantasy.

    The banned assault weapons on the list are nothing more than standard hunting rifles dressed up to look cosmetically different. There is NOTHING about them that makes them any more dangerous than the semi-automatic rifles that are NOT banned. They don't shoot any faster, they don't shoot any more powerfully than the same cartridge in a hunting rifle. And they are responsible for less than 1% of the people killed with firearms in this country. But since they LOOK scary, the knee jerk and uninformed reaction is to ban them.

    The restrictions put in place will effect only law abiding citizens in Maryland, because criminals do NOT abide by laws. All you have done is make it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves from the gun toting criminal. 85% of these criminals get their guns on teh black market, steal them or are given to them by friends and family. How many of these criminals are REALLY going to stop and think "Boy, I better not do this because it is against the law AGAIN".

    Stop demonizing the tool, and start paying attention to the real causes of violence in our society. Well over 80% of all teh violence is directly related to gangs, drugs and other criminal activity. Put police to work enforcing existing laws, and stop punishing law abiding citizens.
  • Joe W (View Email) on May 31, 2013 at 1:54 AM
    Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

    B. Franklin

    All that needs be said. Fortunately, this law will be struck down in the courts, and O'Malley will never even get a sniff of the Oval Office.
  • 277Volt on May 31, 2013 at 6:15 AM
    Well at least the people that abide by the law will be restricted. If only we could pass laws that criminals would abide by!
  • S.A. Craig (View Email) on June 1, 2013 at 1:31 PM
    This article could not be more wrong thinking. I am a law enforcement officer in Maryland. The guns that this law banned are used in less than 1/10 of 1% of crimes with guns - that is less than 5 crimes in the last 5 years. This law just did away with many shooting sports and target rifle matches in Maryland enjoyed by thousands of sportsmen and women. Criminals also do not "register" guns. This law is illegal socialism. O'Malley is an idealist whacko who ran Baltimore into the ground and then the State of Maryland. Thats what happens in a one-party state. Hopefully these stupid gun bans will fall to the impending law suit. Banning standard capacity magazines also does nothing. It takes a man of average dexterity less than two second to change a pistol or rifle magazine.
    • Alumnus on June 1, 2013 at 9:17 PM
      This was a well-written, insightful post right up until "socialism," which in this context is completely meaningless and serves as nothing but a blanket derogatory.
  • Max on June 6, 2013 at 6:14 AM
    While I do agree with some parts of the gun bill, I have to point out a second amendment issue in the article. The author made the point that the second amendment is basically irrelevant because it is tied to militias, which have become obsolete. The author should probably know if they have done any amount of research that that specific argument was used in the "Heller" Supreme Court case, and the court rejected that argument. As far as second amendment jurisprudence is concerned, people do have a right to bear arms. However, the "Heller" decision does ban certain types of military-style weapons, which many people are using as an argument for the constitutionality of an assault weapons ban.
Jump to first comment