The United States is the place where democracy has come to the issue overgrowing protection. By this one should understand that the American nation is the most armed place in the world. In New Jersey this reading is growing every now and then. The Obama’s new gun policy is not surprising, for there are too many cases when situation spin out of control. It concerns especially the issue of gun shooting among teenagers and youth on the whole. On the other hand, it is a problem of the national scope. People do not feel saved until there will be special measures providing verification over gun possession within population. All theses mechanisms should be taken into consideration. Points on security lead to the governmental programs. In this respect the President Obama wants to improve the situation by promoting a new gun policy into the national agenda for renovations and changes in the society. This step is one of the most necessary for the development of internal relations in the US.
Since the announcement of new gun policy by the Obama administration the situation seems to be the same. The thing is that with the step of the government on the pathway to ban automatic and semi-automatic guns selling, the sales increased on the rest of weapon. Since Barak Obama was elected in 2008 “gun sales have been way up”, and that reminded gun shop owners the situation of 9/11 (CBS para. 4). In fact, many representatives of the Democratic government wonder about the reasons of such drive inn the society. This is why today the necessity of extra-ordinary laws is rather high. New laws promise to improve the situation with such outrageous situation. The point is that if the government ignores the regulations of weapon sales, violence in schools will continue. To say more, it threatens the nation by unadjusted cases of shooting which may result in many victims.
In the state of New Jersey the situation is rather concrete according to the gun possession. In fact, it is known that the local gun laws strictly point out cases with firearms. “Under N.J.S. 2C:39-5, possession of ALL firearms is prohibited unless one has a NJ permit to carry a handgun or a NJ Firearm Purchaser ID card for long guns” (New Jersey Guns para. 1). Thereupon, the observation of the situation in this state needs more glimpses at how people deal with this ban. The thing is that the legal possession of arms is only due to exemptions. Unique nuances which are appropriate to New Jersey really limit the rights of people to have a gun. However, several points on how legally it is possible to acquire this specific product give ground for people to buy guns not solely for security. In fact, people lose their right for having a gun. They are in some points astonished about such move of the government toward huge ban of the gun shops throughout the states.
The camps of supporters and those who blame such policy of the President Obama are known very much. Democratic and Republican branches of power are still anticipating about this issue. The thing is that this sphere of economical approach gives great incomes to the national budget. On the federal approach the situation looks today with a mere political polarization. The issues of gun sales and gun control are very significant to America. Business-related circles insist on the spread of gun rights when the frontrunners of the gun control tend to provide more schemes for the decrease of unsettled sales. Of course, in policy-making the candidates and the current representatives of political majority tend to make more emphasis on rational use of weapon. The supporters of this policy are Rudolph Giuliani and Mitt Romney who insist on better control of the weapon in internal field of the national relations (Rostron 6). The opposite side of this urge, Republicans, has also the group of supporters of new gun laws. John McCain and Andrew McKelvey are among them (Rostron 7). The general line of the party, however, is for the rights of gun owners and gun shoppers.
When the situation is in the process of debates in the Congress and among the supporters and opponents of the program, New Jersey is anxious. On the one hand, the aggressive outreach of guns for the population will deepen the situation in the state. People are constantly afraid of the threats from other civilians, unless they will have firearms. Local laws will be emphasized by new federal laws on guns. This will make a supposed violation of rights among Americans. It is the problem of why there are so many opponents of the President’s program. On the other hand, the policy of Obama will make the situation in New Jersey even more secured and controlled. Such numerous cases of shooting in schools and colleges will supposedly omit the state. Peaceful settlement of relationships in the society is at a core for New Jersey.
During the process of adoption of new laws several bills were proposed to the House-Senate. Obama’s bill outlined different circumstantial moments which serve to be the ground for allowance or prohibition of firearms. As far as it is known, Obama strictly lame the policy of former president which allowed people to carry loaded guns in parklands. In this respect the House stated the fact the measure 279-147 was approved: “A total of 105 Democrats in the House joined 174 Republicans in supporting the gun measure, which essentially restores a Bush administration policy that allowed loaded guns in national parks” (Associated Press para. 2). Thus, it is a hot question of whether or not should people protect their life by means of the firearms. Is it a fact of lack of national protection program for Americans? It is a paradox for the USA when the cases of uncontrolled sales of arms lead to shooting with dead victims. In turn Congress and government only strengthen positions of gun owners.
Senate also voted for the legalization of carrying of unloaded or blocked firearms in Amtrak (Becker para. 1). This measure was strictly criticized by the Democrats represented by Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana and others. In fact, this bill underwent the adoption, and today it is possible to state that most of Americans acquired more rights for possessing guns. Notwithstanding the fact that the Obama’s bills as of gun policy cannot pass the Congress, the President works out a straight line of negotiations with supporters of gun rights. In New Jersey with the line of prohibition measures the increase in gun sales is rather felt. The Ceasefire New Jersey director states that initially supposed slight sales overgrew into so-called “fair of weapon” (CBS para. 10). This assertion restates the former policy by George Bush Jr.
All in all, the intentions of the President Obama gave fewer points on support of his policy. It is the fact of failure for President. Barak Obama wanted to sign and adopt these amendments to the national laws without making consultations even inside the Democratic representatives of the party. This is the fact when initially rational and proper to the time bill is attacked by the accustomed manner to share the gun policy of previous times. It seems to be like a tradition for Americans and representatives of the Congress and of the local governments. Obama started this approach when being the senator of Illinois. He tried to ban the increase of gun rights for the population. A desire among Americans to protect was banned by Barak Obama for the purpose of state’s protection. Being the President Obama does not give up in his intention to ban some of the gun rights throughout the law system.
The 68-31 vote was a defeat for the National Rifle Association (NRA), as the Senate confirmed Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court (The Washington Times para. 1). Such turn in the case with gun owners and opponents of the Obama’s gun policy is the feedback on prolonged process of discussion of it in the higher echelons of power. In other words, the research shows that all branches of state power in the United States are involved in the debates about the issue. The reports of polls provided state that 83% of Americans are for letting carry the guns, when only 11% are against such right in the United States (The Washington Times para. 7). This is why there are more points of people living in New Jersey to state for their rights to possess weapon.
The point is that in New Jersey the gun policy by Obama is applicable due to the laws of the state. The strict and aggressive position of lawmakers in New Jersey was not even changed for the last ten years. It represents the fact that inn this state the population adopts the steps of the President to limit people in their gun rights. The situation in New Jersey seems to have a lot of the gun rights activists. For this purpose people want to make emphasis on permitting to carry handgun, but at the moment the gun policy is strict. Moving toward better way for the national security the President provides more and more discussions represented by Judge Sotomayor. In this respect the NRA needs more support in the Congress, so that to persuade the publicity in the reliability of firearms for the population.
The policy is in place since the election of Barak Obama. However, since that time there are a lot of controversies about the gun issue. Most of inhabitants living in New Jersey are claiming today that they are not protected enough. This point is strengthened by the judicial influence. New Jersey Appellate Court Judge Stephen Skillman is the major actor for the law which bans carrying handguns in New Jersey (Johnson para. 3). This person seems to be one of the President’s supporters. What is more, such action outraged people in the state. Indeed, Obama’s gun policy is working today in New Jersey. Governor Jon Corzine supports the idea to ban gun rights. His attention is grabbed to the social sector. In fact, the policy in New Jersey and its lawful base are going in line with the initiatives by President Obama. This point is emphasized by the strong remark of the Governor: “While we are winning some important battles against violent crime, we must remain aggressive in combating illegal possession, use and trafficking of firearms in New Jersey” (Rispoli para. 1). This position of contemporary force in New Jersey gives no other way for the population, but to support it. However, the rationality in the dialogue between the state’s authority and the people of New Jersey is still in the process.
People of New Jersey may feel themselves unsafe when travelling throughout the country because of the legislation being approved. Nonetheless, New Jersey today is one of the four states that follow the line of President Obama along with California, Maryland and Virginia (Rispoli para. 2). Governor Corzine was also supported by the mayor of Jersey City, Jeremiah Healy who struggled in the Supreme Court for making possible for New Jersey people to possess not more than one handgun (Rispoli para. 5). This position of the official authority of the state was emphasized with the Senate’s agreement for New Jersey to follow this way. However, the state is known for a majority of ordinary hunters who cannot but limit the license because of their hobby. It is a point of hot discussion in the state. Moreover, ordinary people are still worrying about the validity of their protection by the local powers. They try to be law-abiding citizens, but the instability of peoples’ relationships provides the main reason for them. In other words, gun-violence is not new for any among the states in the US. Hence, the representatives of the NRA-like associations get worried especially because of the Governor’s support in this case. Scott Bach is the president of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs. He states that the way of legislature is wrong and gives rather direct argument: “Trying to reduce gun crime by rationing guns to law-abiding citizens is as absurd as trying to reduce drunk driving by rationing cars to non-drinkers” (Rispoli para. 5). The same arguments are fair about drug dealers. However, the approach of the New Jersey government is straightforward and inevitable for the population of the state and Americans being in the area of it.
Thus, it is known that the law becomes obligatory and takes its affect since the beginning of 2010. To be precise, since January 1st the violation of the law is considered with a fourth-degree felony with a “penalty of up to 18 months in prison and a fine of up to $10,000, or both” (Rispoli para. 10). This step inflicts one more point on peoples’ awareness of the laws in New Jersey.
The future of Obama’s gun policy is implied into further discussion in the society about the necessity of such approach. Still there are fewer agreements in the society about this initiative of President. This policy is rather humane but today it has more opponents within Americans and in the Congress, as well. In New Jersey such step seems to be traditional for this state. People have already got accustomed with the gun policy of Governor Corzine. There is no way out for opponents at the moment because the bill soon will take affect. This is why there is the budding future for the protection issue of the Americans living in the state. The next steps will probably touch upon the closer verification of the gun carrying throughout the population of New Jersey and the United States on the whole. The situation is constantly growing in terms of the supposed danger for the population. Sceptics about the law in New Jersey represent the line of confrontation with the official authority. In turn, it gives more public opposition to Obama’s claims about the bills and amendments which he wants to adopt.
The contemporary problem considers today the fact, that the society still ignores the facts of gun-violence apparent in American schools and in the streets as well. This seems the main problem for the societal affairs; because publicity does not mind the reliability of the President’s approach. The process of debates as for gun rights is continuing. Its duration many critics realize with the presidential terms of Barak Obama. In New Jersey the claim for gun rights concerns the claims of the society. The supporters of the law are in most cases ordinary people searching for more control and order in the streets. Outlined limitation is one more feature of social changes in New Jersey. It is the quest of freedom and security for democratically-arranged people and for those who stand for the improvement of internal relationships in the American nation.
Works cited
Associated Press. “Congress votes to allow guns in national parks: The approval is a bitter disappointment for gun-control advocates.” 2009. Web.
Allen Rostron. “Cease Fire: A “Win-Win” Strategy on Gun Policy for the Obama Administration.” Harvard Law & Policy Review 3, 2009:347-367.
Becker, Bernie. “Senate Votes to O.K. Checked Guns on Amtrak.” The Caucus. 2009. Web.
CBS. News and commentaries. “Gun Sales On The Rise Over Obama Gun Control Fears: All Types Of Firearms Flying Off Shelves As Many Americans Appear Determined To Head President-Elect Off.” 2008. Web.
Johnson, Zakariah. “New Jersey, Gun Rights, and the English Language.” American Hunters and Shooters Association. 2009. Web.
New Jersey Guns. New Jersey Firearm Laws, 2009. Web.
Rispoli, Michael. “Gov. Corzine signs new law limiting N.J. gun purchases.” New Jersey Real-Time News. 2009. Web.
The Washington Times. “EDITORIAL: Gun control on a roll? Americans are clinging to their arms more than ever.” 2009. Web.