This article is written by Deena Nawab, an Advocate by profession. The author explains the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, gun laws across the states in the US, the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the debate around the right to bear arms on the rise of gun violence in the US.
It has been published by Rachit Garg.
Safety comes as the top priority for any citizen, but the extent to which he may go to defend himself also counts. Possession of a gun may not seem like a problem, but this weapon is used, and the laws imposed by the country on its citizens must be adhered to. Imagine a country where bearing guns with a license is legal, but despite this, the citizens are harmed when an insensible man uses it against them without knowing its consequences.
In the US, a citizen has the right to possess and carry a gun for self-defense as per the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. This defense is getting out of hand as there are no strict regulations on gun use in the states of the US with high gun deaths. And poses a threat to the people around, who have no assurance about their lives. In the majority of gun violence cases, gender, color, class, and economic background play a crucial role.
This article sets forth an explanation of the right to bear arms in the US and the judiciary’s interpretation of the Second Amendment under the US Constitution by shedding knowledge on the states with the strictest and weakest gun laws in the country. Furthermore, explaining the misinterpretation of the Second Amendment based on the massive debates going on over the rise of mass shootings in the country, irrespective of the location.
History of gun laws in the US
The rapid surge in violence caused by the use of guns in the US is not a trending topic to talk about; instead, the mass use and transportation of guns were present even before the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. The adult male of every household was encouraged to possess and carry guns around to defend himself and his family against any harm, theft, or attack by the Native Americans. This was not limited; instead, they were encouraged to carry guns around, whether it be to church or public meetings. In the initial stages, gun possession was used for hunting and self-defense; these weapons were of great use during the American Revolutionary War.
The possession of guns was restricted to the Native Americans (indigenous Americans), slaves in the US, and others belonging to the professions of medicine, teaching, law, and milling. Under the Federal Law of 1792, every man in the militia service had to possess a gun by registering it on public records. Not every man in the US followed the law strictly; a sufficient number of men in every household possessed a rifle for hunting, despite the heavy fines of over $9,000 levied on such citizens.
Gun laws against slaves
Slaves, especially black men, were oppressed throughout US history. From the 1700s to the 1800s, and even after the system of slavery was abolished in 1865, black people were restricted from possessing guns, and they were called “any person of color”. For instance, the Georgia law back in 1833 stated that any person of color must not bear, own, or carry arms around. And if anyone was found to possess firearms, he would be punished with thirty-nine lashes on his bare back and his possession of firearms would be sold.
Racism was less prominent in federal laws but more so under state laws. This is evident from the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856). Black people were denied the right to be citizens of the US because, if given citizenship, then they would also be entitled to the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.
The U.S gun laws from the 1800s to the 1900s
We shall see how gun laws were enacted and executed during the years between the 1800s and the 1900s.
- The Federal Firearms Act, 1938
Through the enactment of the Federal Firearms Act, 1938, there were restrictions set on the people of the country. This Act avoided the sale of arms to convicted felons and required the dealers to be authorized individuals licensed by the federal government to maintain records of the citizens purchasing firearms. But despite the regulations set by the government through this Act, it was overtaken by the Gun Control Act, 1968.
- The Gun Control Act, of 1968
The Gun Control Act of 1968 was implemented as a law by President Lyndon B. Johnson after the US witnessed the import of cheap firearms along with major incidents, including the University of Texas mass shooting in 1966, the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy in 1963, Martin Luther King in 1968, Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, and Malcolm X in 1965. This Act regulates the transportation of firearms interstate under the supervision of authorized and licensed manufacturers, dealers, and importers. This Act implemented stringent actions on those importing, possessing, and selling guns without authorization or on anyone who is a minor. And as well as on the dealer who sells firearms, even without the intention of causing harm to society through the action of the one who had purchased the guns from him.
- The Firearms Owners Protection Act, 1986
The Firearms Owners Protection Act, 1986, was implemented as a modification to the Gun Control Act, 1968. This Act reduced the burden on the dealers, as it set limitations on the inspections to be carried out by dealers. The ones who lost their gun possession because of a felony conviction were given a right under this Act to reinstate it, and the dealers were only convicted on the ground by proving that they sold firearms with mala fide intention. One major contribution to gun possession implemented under this Act was the prohibition set on the government to maintain updated records of the gun dealers, which was indeed a relief to the dealers.
Gun laws from 2000 until the present
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and the Child Safety Lock Act (CSLA) of 2005.
This Act safeguards the dealers, manufacturers, distributors, and importers from any civil or criminal liability for any damage or attack caused by the misuse of the arms sold by them to the concerned person who has intended harm to the nation. The PLCAA is a shield for the gun industry, whether it be the manufacturer or dealer, against the commission of harmful activity by a third party on the purchase of their products. The victims, therefore, cannot file a suit against the concerned gun industry or manufacturer for any strict action to be taken against them.
But this Act is heavily criticized by the victims’ families, as they are not in a state to seek complete redress for the harm done to them by these manufacturers or dealers. Before the Act, the victims were able to legally seek compensatory damages from the dealers for their irresponsible behavior in not maintaining official records of the guns sold. Lawsuits filed against the dealers or manufacturers are automatically dismissed through this Act.
As for the CSLA, which was adopted to be a part of the PLCAA, this Act made it mandatory for licensed dealers, manufacturers, or importers to provide safe gun storage when handing over a gun to a concerned person.
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 2005
The most impactful Act enacted by the government was the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 2005. This Act established a five-day waiting period for a background check on an unlicensed person who wishes to have gun possession from a licensed dealer, manufacturer, or importer before the sale of the firearm.
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvement Amendments Act (NICS) 2007
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvement Amendments Act (NICS) of 2007 aimed to amend the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993. This Act came as a wake against the Virginia Tech shooting that took place in April 2007; the shooter was able to purchase firearms from an FFL since no mental health medical track was made available to the NICS.
The NICS examines the records of the concerned person based on a background check to determine if the person is disqualified or mentally challenged to own a handgun. This data is administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The NCIS relies on three important databases:
- First is the Interstate Identification Index (III), which contains data on previous recorded criminal history;
- The second, the National Crime Information Center, serves the data of those persons who have had civil orders or arrest warrants issued against them; and
- The third NCIS Indices, the federal and state agencies transmit those data that are not provided under the above two types of data. Under this data, the agency lists every possible person who has a recorded history of mental health or is an illegal migrant.
If the applicant is rejected for owning a handgun based on the data provided by the FBI, the aggrieved person can seek correction by applying directly to the FBI or the concerned state or federal agency.
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, 2022
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, 2022, was brought into action by Congress in response to the rise of mass shootings that took place in New York and Texas. This Act aims to regulate the accessibility of firearms through a background check on the buyer’s age and mental health condition for anyone below the age of 21. A verification check on the dealer’s previous criminal records, with the investigation lasting up to 10 days is performed. This Act aims for the states to implement “Red Flag” laws that prevent a person who seems to be a threat from bearing arms and carrying them around.
This Act further imposed restrictions on convicts’ rights to bear firearms, and this right would be restored only after five years post-conviction to prevent them from committing any crime. Further punishes any person who conspires to sell or purchase a firearm for or on behalf of another person who has the intention of causing terrorist attacks, felony, fear, or any such offense that is harmful to the members of the nation, with imprisonment for up to 25 years along with a fine. This Act was converted into law by President Joe Biden’s signature on June 25, 2022.
Right to bear arms and the Second Amendment
The US may seem like a country where bearing guns has no limitations due to its high gun violence rate, but this is one wrong assumption. The age to possess and own firearms for US citizens is when one has attained the age of majority, which is 18 years (federal level), to purchase shotguns, ammunition, or rifles. This regulation is set under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as the gun rules differ across the states in the US. By reading through the previous history of gun control and the possession of firearms by the citizens of America, one can say that during the colonial period, this was a major weapon for American independence.
Through the Second Amendment, US citizens are given the fundamental right to bear arms by imposing safety on them for self-defense. Since bearing arms was of great significance during the colonial period, the lawmakers could not in any way eradicate this right, which was allotted, and hence gave the citizen the liberty to bear arms even today for their safety.
The Second Amendment states that “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.” These words under the Second Amendment have caused a series of debates and confusion over what action they call for. That is, some hold to the assumption that this gives an individual right for citizens to bear and possess arms, with no legislative body being entitled to interfere in the firearm possession of such a US citizen. This is asserted to be an individual theory and is primarily preferred to be an operative clause of the Second Amendment.
Others assume that the words “well-regulated militia” were put up by the lawmakers to restrict Congress and make any decision that would affect the state’s right to seek self-defense. This is asserted to be a collective theory, meaning only the state, federal, or local authorities have the right to possess firearms and that the citizens do not have the right to possess firearms in the name of self-defense. This collective theory is primarily entitled to be a prefatory clause.
Extension of rights beyond the Second Amendment.
The citizens of the US do not just seek the right to bear arms through the Second Amendment. But they may also seek redress through the Fourteenth Amendment or the First Amendment of the Constitution if their right to bear firearms is violated in any way, whether by the state or federal government.
Gun rights possession through the First Amendment
The First Amendment is the most essential part of the Bill of Rights and aims to give freedom to everyone in respect of religion, the right to file a petition, form an assembly, and have an expression. This amendment sets a restriction on Congress against implementing any laws that are disrespectful towards any religion, sets a prohibition on freedom of expression and speech, and gives the right to file a petition to seek any redress of grievance from the government by holding a mass protest. Hence, citizens are given freedom of speech and expression, which is associated with the right to carry firearms as listed under the Second Amendment.
The First and Second Amendments have collided in a way where the citizens have attributed the open carry of firearms as a form of freedom of expression. The citizens, who carry firearms under the impression of “freedom of expression” in any mass assembly, can turn any protest into a violent one if there is a clash between the protestors or protesters and the local authorities.
And on an important note, it is not a violation of freedom of expression if the federal or state government prohibits the activity of carrying open guns in public, whether in large gathering churches or parks.
Gun rights through the Fourteenth Amendment
This amendment aims to grant every citizen of the country “equal protection before the law.”
Thereby entitling Congress to impose a penalty on the states for violating the rights of citizens by disproportionately electing and representing their citizens in Congress. The scope of the Fourteenth Amendment was extended in the case of McDonald v. Chicago (2010), as the Second Amendment on the right to bear arms was applied in the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. In this case, around 2008, an African-American man named Otis McDonald, along with a few others, instituted a case before the U.S. District Court challenging the Chicago law. The challenge was the ban imposed on obtaining new registrations, making it compulsory to possess registered firearms.
The provisions in the Chicago law were also challenged on the prohibition it set on carrying firearms around. As stated, these provisions violated the individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment and as protected by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).
The Supreme Court, by a 5:4 majority ruling, had remanded the decision of the Seventh Circuit. Thereby giving way for the Second Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment, for the right to bear and possess arms. On behalf of the majority, Justice Samuel A. Alito stated that the states in the U.S. are entitled to the rights deeply rooted in the country’s history. He pointed out that the Due Process Clause of the fourteenth amendment gives an insight into the inclusion of the second amendment. In contradiction to what Justice Clarence Thomas believed, the Second Amendment is included in the privileges or immunity clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Not all the judges accepted this interpretation, as only a few agreed, whereas the other judges believed that there was no personal liberty to own a firearm under the due process clause. Further stating that nothing in the Second Amendment, whether in respect of history or text, gives way to the fundamental right of bearing arms.
Gun laws across the states
Gun laws are not the same in every state in the US. The majority of states have strict regulations on gun laws, and the other few do not take any stringent action on the use of firearms. The option to carry a firearm is classified into two categories: open carry and concealed carry.
In open carry, the citizen is allowed to carry his firearm in public without it being concealed, whereas, in concealed carry, the firearm must not be displayed before the public by being kept out of sight from them. Before we go ahead and learn about the weakest and strongest state gun laws in the country, know that every state is obliged to determine the type of carrier allowed to its citizens.
Gun registries in the States
Not every state in the US has a registry set up at its location to keep an updated list of the guns supplied or stored, along with the details of dealers and citizens who purchase guns. The states where it is mandatory to register weapons before a citizen wishes to purchase a gun are:
- California: The Registry of California is crucially kept up-to-date on maintaining the details about the citizens purchasing a gun by entering their full name, place of residence, fingerprints, and details of the firearm with its serial number. This data is taken by the California Department of Justice, and citizens who owned a weapon before 1991 are given an exception to register.
- Hawaii: The procedure to acquire data is the same as under the California Department of Justice, but in Hawaii, there’s a five-day waiting period to physically attain the firearm once it’s purchased.
- District of Columbia: In Columbia, one owns a firearm by registering its serial number along with the citizen’s name and address with the District Columbia Police.
- New York: Possession of a handgun in New York without registration imposes a heavy fine on the citizen, and there is an admission fee of $3 to register the weapon.
- Maryland: The local police department is in charge, and the citizen must register the handgun before the concerned authority.
Whereas in the states of New Jersey, Michigan, and Washington, they make it mandatory to store the data of the sale of guns before the concerned police authorities.
States with weak gun laws
High gun violence death rates are reported in those states with no strict implementation of gun laws. The following states have reported the highest death rates: Mississippi, Louisiana, Alaska, Wyoming, Alabama, and Missouri. Let’s have a look at the gun laws in these states:
The citizens of this state are allowed to carry arms openly without registering a gun or having a permit. But owning a handgun is not permitted for anyone below the age of 18 years. The citizens are given the permit to carry the handgun to parks, restaurants (but no bars), and vehicles, but this must be concealed. There is no reporting authority here whatsoever to take data; the only restriction set by this state is on the age to purchase a handgun. The constitution of this state allows its citizens to carry handguns without a permit. You can read more on this State’s gun laws here.
This state requires no registration to carry a handgun, but the citizen must report it to any officer who comes to him as his first interaction while carrying a gun. The minimum age to own a handgun is 18 years old, and citizens carry concealed handguns in vehicles, parks, and only those restaurants that do not serve alcohol. You can read more on this State’s gun laws here.
The minimum age to carry a gun legally is 16 years, but this age limit is in contradiction with the federal law that allows gun possession legally at the age of 18 years. The citizen is allowed to openly carry the firearm in his vehicle, parks, and restaurants (that serve no alcohol). No permit is required to carry a handgun under the constitution of the state, but the officer on duty must be informed about the possession. You can read more on this State’s gun laws here.
The minimum age to carry a firearm is 18 years old in this state, and no permit is required as well. A constitutional carry law was passed on July 1st, 2021, permitting everyone over the age of 21 to carry a gun, whether openly or concealed, in the state without permission. There is no duty officer for any report submission. You can read more on this State’s gun laws here.
The citizens of this state must necessarily own a permit called the Alabama Pistol Permit to openly carry a loaded gun around in vehicles, parks, and restaurants. The legal age to own a gun is 18 years, and there is no officer to be reported for gun possession. On Jan 1st, 2023, this state gave its citizens the right to carry a gun constitutionally in the state without a permit. You can read more on this State’s gun laws here.
The legal age to own a gun is 19 years old, and possession can be attained without a permit. Even though carrying a gun is constitutionally permitted in this state, citizens must be careful when entering restricted areas of the state, which may impose heavy penalties for the possession of guns. The citizen is free to carry concealed arms without a permit in vehicles, parks, or restaurants. You can read more on this State’s gun laws here.
States with strict gun laws
The states with the strictest and strongest gun laws in the country have reported fewer gun deaths in the US. California and New Jersey have the strictest gun laws in the country, followed by Hawaii, Massachusetts, and New York.
This state has one of the strictest gun laws in the country. The citizens of this country are permitted to carry guns only under two accepted conditions. The first is that the citizen must possess a license under the California Concealed Weapons License. The second is that the population must always be within 200,000 people if the citizen wishes to carry a handgun in the state. And if they fail to fulfill these conditions, then the citizens are not given the right to carry guns in the state. Citizens are allowed to carry guns in vehicles, parks, or restaurants only if they have a CCWL. The procedure to attain a license in this state is lengthy, as it may take up to 10 days for the permit to be obtained or else up to 30 days as well. You can read more on this State’s gun laws here.
- New Jersey
The citizen who wishes to attain a license in this state for gun possession must show a justifiable reason for the need to carry arms. It is however not at all easy to attain a gun license in this state, as one needs to be at least 21 years old and complete a training course to possess a firearm. One needs a New Jersey permit to carry a handgun (PCH); the license applies to both residents and non-residents. You can read more on this State’s gun laws here.
- New York
The procedure for owning a gun in New York is not easy either. One must attain a license under the New York Pistol License (NYPL) for the permit to carry concealed guns. One must show a justifiable reason to possess a gun before the concerned local county sheriff. A background check must be completed, along with the registration of firearms and a permit, to be able to purchase a handgun for lawful possession. This is only applicable to residents of New York. This state does not allow people to carry guns in parks or restaurants, except in vehicles with reasonable restrictions. You can read more on this State’s gun laws here.
It is necessary to have a permit to carry a gun in this state, and the license is given to both residents and non-residents of the state. The person who seeks to attain a permit or a gun license must have attained the age of 21 along with completing a training course. This state allows for concealed carry in vehicles, parks, and restaurants only with a license. You can read more on this State’s gun laws here.
The permit to obtain a license is difficult to obtain in this state, as since 2000, only four citizens have been given the permit. The citizens are allowed to conceal and carry weapons in vehicles, but not in parks or restaurants. You can read more on this State’s gun laws here.
United States v. Miller (1939)
This landmark case set the scope for the applicability of the Second Amendment. The defendants had challenged the National Firearms Act, 1934, provisions, contending that the prohibition on the transportation of firearms without authorized registration or stamps violated the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment. The defendant had filed an appeal before the Supreme Court after the District Court of Arkansas pronounced that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act (1934) is invalid under the Second Amendment concerning the transportation of firearms without an authorized stamp. The defendants, Jack Miller and Frank Layton, had transported the firearms, which were described as a Steven shotgun with less than 18 inches of length (unregistered firearms), from Claremore town (State of Oklahoma) to the town of Siloam Springs (State of Arkansas).
The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment lays special emphasis on bearing arms for regulating and maintaining a militia. But there was no evidence drawn before the court that it was necessary to have a shotgun of fewer than 18 inches to be provided for a well-regulated militia. The Court further stated that it is the responsibility of Congress to implement well-regulated laws, discipline, and arrangements of arms in the militia, and thus that the Second Amendment’s main scope is for the militia’s effectiveness. And that the Second Amendment has shed light only on only this fact or for the bearing of arms by the militia, not as stated by the defendants, since there was no proof that the weapon used by them was military equipment or else it was used as a common defense for the state or the welfare of the people.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the issue and the confusion among many scholars about whether the right to bear arms is an individual or collective right. The defendant had challenged the provisions of Columbia Law, which prevented the issue of a license to bear arms except if issued by the police with one-year validity. The Court went on to state that the individual’s right to bear arms is an operative clause, and this is the right of In this case, the “people” concludes as an individual right and not a collective right. Further pointing out that the word “arms” is not just limited to military weapons but also those weapons that are not for military use. And the Second Amendment not only covered the arms that existed during the 18th century but also the framers had widened its scope even for the non-existing during that time. Concluding that, the Second Amendment is majorly an individual right and not a collective right.
United States v Verdugo-Urquidez (1990)
The definition of the word “people” was expanded by the Court in the case, the Court pointed out that the expression “people” as listed in the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments includes any person who has built a connection with the country over time, a member of a community same as US citizens, and also for those individuals that are regarded to be a national community member. Thereby clearly stating that even foreigners who are non-citizens in the country are given the right under the Second Amendment to bear arms.
US v Skoien (2010)
In this case, accused who was convicted of domestic violence was prohibited from bearing arms and the aggrieved thus challenged this before the Seventh Circuit, United States Courts of Appeals. The Court pointed out it would only be mandatory to uphold a statute if it interfered with the government interest, and only then would the court interpret the statute. The Court upheld that if the convicted domestic abusers were given the right to bear arms after their release and they headed back to the same location where the previous offense was committed, then the probabilities are that they would be arrested again for the reason of the use of a deadly weapon. Hence, the constitutionality of the statute was upheld by the Court as the state was able to justify why the restriction on such convicts was reasonable and to not be lifted.
There was a challenge set against this New York law for making it compulsory to have a license to transport and possess arms, the case was presented before the Supreme Court. To own a handgun, the individual had to show the proper reasonable cause to possess the firearm, even in the case of self-defense. In the majority ruling of 6:3, the Court pointed out that there was a violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments as one cannot be restricted to owning guns for self-defense. Further stating that the Second Amendment did not state any clarification on the possession of arms whether it’s in the house or public place hence giving them an individual right to carry guns even in public areas.
The ongoing debate around the right to bear arms
The debate on gun control in the US is in an uproar due to the mass murders caused by the use of firearms by psychopaths. Those advocating against gun control laws firmly believe that the ultimate right given to the people to bear arms can cause great destruction in the nation, which is happening. This problem is now out of hand with mass shootings in public gatherings and schools, whether in New York or Texas. The debaters argue that if no strict action is taken on the mass production and distribution of firearms, the result would be the production of more cheap firearms. The confusion caused by the Second Amendment has risked the lives of civilians, and citizens cannot just have the right to bear arms in the name of “self-defense.”
Gun violence deaths increased rapidly; not just death, but these incidents also reported major physical injuries and mental pain to the victims. Based on the recorded information by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the death rate from gun violence decreased in 2022 compared with the statistic in 2020. 2020 alone recorded 45,222 deaths through the use of firearms. The reason for this death rate increased dramatically as the number of licensed dealers increased to about 2,000 in number within the previous five years’ duration.
Few states in the country have taken great initiative in implementing the strictest gun laws, which has resulted in a low rate of gun deaths. But in states with weak gun laws, mass murders and acts of violence are happening due to an insufficient interpretation of the Second Amendment and the rights imposed by it, whether for militias or citizens. Hence, even the judiciary couldn’t do much because if it did, this would be a violation of the constitutional rights to which the citizens are entitled. Through scholarly research, it is found that the Second Amendment has narrow scopes because the real intention of the lawmakers is unknown, and if interpreted wrongly, it may cause serious reprisals by the citizens.
The Second Amendment has certainly conferred an individual right on the citizens to bear arms. But the limitations to be imposed must be determined by the judiciary to that extent, which does not violate the Constitution as well. It must be accepted that the US is witnessing an unreasonable rise in mass shootings in schools, racist attacks on blacks, and shootings in public areas. The interpretation of the Second Amendment has spread wrongful information on the right to bear arms, as the main ideology behind this amendment was to possess guns for self-defense while keeping in mind the traditional gun rules. Keeping this in mind, the scope of the right to bear arms is further extended by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Hence, the states with high death rates must fully implement the registration, licensing, and data collection procedures to impose a sense of responsibility among their citizens to avoid fear and harmful actions.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
- What does the Second Amendment of the US Constitution mean in simple terms?
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution confers the right on the citizens to bear arms (individual right) and the state can only be protected if there is a strong, well-regulated militia, giving authority to the state to possess firearms (collective right).
- What is the term militia under the Second Amendment?
Ans- Militia here refers to the military services in the country to protect the state and its citizens against any national threat, whether seen or unseen.
- What is the Fourteenth Amendment?
Ans- This Amendment was brought into place to eradicate any racism and inequality present in the country. The ancient law never really gave justice to the men of color and imposed inhuman punishment on those who possessed arms without a license. Hence, this amendment aimed to give equality to men of color and abolish the black codes (which prohibit men of color from carrying arms) ensuring that these men were treated equally and possessed arms.
- Does one need to bear guns in possession for self-defense?
Ans- With the growing possession of guns, homicide caused by the use of guns is expanding in the country. This has become a trend, one cannot simply ignore the fact of the latest gun violence murders. So to say, to avoid such threats, families or individuals choose to carry a gun with them to protect themselves against unforeseen incidents.
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join: