The year 2012 was a horrific year for mass shootings in the United States. Americans were shocked by an April spree at a religious school in Oakland that killed seven, the brutal theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, in July that killed 12, the Sikh Temple massacre in Wisconsin in August that claimed six lives, the September Minneapolis sign-plant slaughter of five, and most recently, the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut that took the lives of 26 students and teachers. Cases like these have prompted the Obama Administration as well as the entire nation to reconsider what laws and restrictions need to be placed with regard to gun access and control without interfering with the constitutional rights of citizens. It is a known fact that America was produced into a nation based on the ideologies of freedom and democracy; with the constitution as the heart of its central government. The basic rights of citizens stated in the amendments are not only unambiguous but also eminently conserved by the Judicial System and Supreme Courts, which makes it a crucial challenge to modify, despite having national catastrophes that leave the government questioning their responsibilities with regard to public safety. Guns are a huge presence on the American landscape, no doubt. With an estimated 300 million firearms privately owned in the U.S., we practically have a weapon for every citizen. In 1994, President Clinton signed a ten year assault weapons ban into law but industries continued to manufacture civilian versions of military rifles. According to author Paul Berrett, “The prohibition actually helped transform what had been a marginal product for most manufacturers into a gun-rights poster child, celebrated by the National Rifle Association and sought after by a much bigger share of the gun-buying public.” Since the ban’s expiration in 2004, no other administration sought to enforce any regulation on assault weapons up until now. Berrett continues to state that, “…in the wake of the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn., President Obama and congressional Democrats are calling for a renewed ban on assault weapons. Proponents of the legislation vow they will do a better job this time [with promises of] no loopholes. [But] skepticism is [still] warranted.” During a recent interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, President Obama stated that public opinion is a crucial component of this debate. Based on that statement, CNN conducted a poll on whether or not owning guns should be restricted. Thirteen percent of people said there should be no restrictions, seventy percent said there should be some restrictions, and fifteen percent said guns should overall be illegal. But simply asking American’s for their opinion is not how our system works. Whatever vicissitudes are sought out, it will have to hold up in the Supreme Court. Cases regarding the protection of the right to bear arms have been scrutinized in the past through numerous Supreme Court rulings. In 2001, “The District of Columbia enacted regulations making it a crime to possess usable unregistered firearms even in the home while, at the same time, prohibiting the registration of handguns” (Nieto). However, during the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case, in a 5-4 decision the Court held that the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual’s right to gun ownership and thereby determined that the District of Columbia's ban on handguns was unconstitutional. This decision was considered a win for gun right advocates after the meaning of the second amendment was modified to protect an individual’s right to possess a firearm “unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” (Scalia). The case that followed this was the 2010 McDonald v. City of Chicago ruling that elaborated on the Heller case by protecting second amendment rights at a state level in accordance with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case also reaffirmed the restrictions that would be placed on those seeking to obtain armed weapons. Such restrictions included those that prohibit the “possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill…and laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places [such as] schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" (Neito). Despite having an umpteen number of regulations, the government is still faced with the challenge of allowing any civilian to go out and buy military based weapons, including those with the impulsion to using them to terrorize a whole nation. President Obama does of course, have a few possible options with regard to the situation. The president and his administration have the authority to allow law-enforcement agencies to confiscate more assault weapons like the AR-15 rifle used in the Aurora shootings by reinstituting a tighter definition of ‘sporting purposes’ when inspecting assault weapons for import. Back in 1989, President George H.W. Bush did this to “ban the import of assault weapons, using powers under the Gun Control Act of 1968, which stipulated that legal rifles had to be ‘suitable for sporting purposes’” (Garrett). Bush lead to this ban after the 1989 shooting in Stockton, California that lead to the death of five schoolchildren and wounded 29 others. The criminal used an AK-47 assault rifle. President Clinton expanded that action with a second executive order in 1998 banning firearm imports and ammunition from China. President George W. Bush also persisted to set bans that limited the use of riles for “sporting purposes.” Upon his entrance in office, President Obama continued the very same policies as his previous precedents. The second option the president has with regard to the situation is to expand the new requirements issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (Jost). This regulation would make it mandatory for gun shops in Border States to report customers who purchase two or more domestically made assault weapons within five business days (Barrett). This would be an ingenious move because the courts have already upheld the reporting requirement, so it could be expanded nationwide without congressional action. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the nation’s leading gun control group, spoke out in favor of this action in a recommendation to Vice President Joe Biden that stated, “Universal background checks on all gun sales would have a clear positive impact on public safety, and is also clearly compatible with the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns” (Shear). Gun-control advocates credit Obama for taking the initial step on tracking multiple sales in Border States (where Mexican cartel violence has risen), but a national system could help make multiple assault-weapon purchases more visible and traceable. A national system could also be used to strengthen mental health checks and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors (Pearson). The third action would be to toughen licensing requirements on gun dealers to secure their inventories. Advocates say that Obama could easily take three basic steps: “Require dealers to better secure firearms from possible theft, mandate background checks of gun-shop employees, and eliminate the "fire sale" loophole that allows gun dealers who have had their licenses revoked to sell off their inventory without compulsory background checks on those sales” (Garrett). The opposition to gun control has grown stronger as well. Compared with the early 1990s, the NRA has strengthened its hand in the halls of Congress, and since Sandy Hook it has added 250,000 new members. More Americans agree with the positions of the NRA than disagree, in the new TIME / CNN poll, and of the half of people with guns in their homes, a majority feel that the government is trying to take their firearms away, even though Obama has not proposed any such measure. Meanwhile, possible solutions to the issue derive from what is already being done to limit the access to firearms but in a more enforceable and strict manner. Such measurement include improving the scope and quality of background checks, with better mental health and more recent criminal records, could help prevent criminal and disturbed individuals from acquiring weapons. Also, better coordination between schools, mental-health officials and the police could flag potential shooters. Despite the wide breach of opinion amongst the public and congress, a decision will eventually be finalized. President Obama has proven numerous times in an election year that he can find executive means to sidestep Congress and the policy goals that they have thwarted. The main goal of this whole debate is not only to fight with organizations like the NRA over legal rights, but to prevent another Oakland, Aurora, Oak Creek, Minneapolis or Newtown shooting from happening all over again. We should not have to fear going to the movies or visiting places of worship or even sending our children off to school. Just as the government uses the second amendment to allow the right to bear arms, it is also their responsibility to oversee that this power is not abused by those who obtain weapons.

References
Antonin Scalia and the Reporter of Decisions. "The Right to Own a Gun Is Guaranteed by the Constitution." Is Gun Ownership a Right? Ed. Kelly Doyle. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. At Issue. Rpt. from "Syllabus, and Opinion of the Court, in Supreme Court of the United States." District of Columbia ET AL. v. Heller. 2008. 1-64. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 13 Jan. 2013.
Barrett, P. M. (2012). What We Can Do About Guns. Bloomberg Businessweek, (4310), 39-42.
Garrett, M. (2012). Three Simple Steps Obama Can Take on Gun Control. National Journal. Retrieved from http://mchoudini.montgomerycollege.edu:2876/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA297917706&v=2.1 &u=rock77357&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w
Jost, K. (2008, October 31). Gun rights debates. CQ Researcher, 18, 889-912. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/
Nieto, Michael. "The changing landscape of firearm legislation in the wake of McDonald v. City of Chicago." Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Summer 2011: 1117+. Gale U.S. History In Context. Web. 13 Jan. 2013.
Pearson, M. (2013, January 14). Obama says gun lobby stokes fear of federal action [Newsgroup post]. Retrieved from CNN website: http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/14/politics/gun-laws-battle/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews
The politics of new gun initiatives [Newsgroup post]. (2013, January 8). Retrieved from CNN website: http://situationroom.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/08/the-politics-of-new-gun-initiatives/?iref=allsearch
Shear, M. D. (2013, January 11). Gun control group urges expanded background checks [Newsgroup post]. Retrieved from New York Times website: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/12/us/politics/gun-control-group-urges-expanded-background-checks.html