Health Policy Legislation
Students Name
Course name
Instructor’s Name
Institution Name
Date
This paper will focus on a current healthcare bill that is of interest to me. The bill title and bill number are H.R. 5717: Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020. I will discuss the bill’s background, the bills’ sponsors and indicate where the bill is in the legislative process. Issues raised by this bill, including the pros and cons of whether this bill should be passed, will be clarified. Diving into what a stakeholder is and their influence on the bill will be an important aspect of this paper—concluding with the challenges and next steps to confirming this bill.
H.R. 5717: Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020 was introduced to the House of Representatives by Representative Henry C. “Hank” Johnson Jr. on January 20th, 2020. The purpose behind this push is “To end the epidemic of gun violence and build safer communities by strengthening Federal firearms laws and supporting gun violence research, intervention, and prevention initiatives” (Congress.gov, 2020). The sponsors and co-sponsors of this bill include Mr. Johnson of Georgia (for himself), Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Quigley, Mr. Brown of Maryland, Mr. Morelle, Ms. DeLauro, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Mr. Keating, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Moulton, Ms. Pressley, Mrs. Trahan, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Neal, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, and Mr. Pascrell (116th Congress, 2020). There have been few actions with the bill after it was introduced to the house. The House of Representatives referred it to the committee on the Judiciary, the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means from January 2020 to February 2020 in accordance with the bill. Since then, the only other actions were the Committee of the Judiciary, referring to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security (Congress.gov, 2020). There have been no other actions about this bill since March 10th, 2020, most likely due to the global COVID-19 pandemic.
It is a well-known fact that gun violence is one of the top concerns in the United States in recent years. “According to data from the Pew Research Center, 44 percent of Americans say that they know someone who has been shot, and another 23 percent report that a gun has been used to threaten or intimidate them or a family member” (Vargas, 2019). Although the numbers vary by state, statistics prove that more than 342,439 people were shot and killed within the United States from 2008 through 2017. Within a 9-year time span, this number translates to one person being shot and killed every 15 minutes (Vargas, 2019). These facts could provoke a response in just about any American in terms of wanting stricter gun laws. However, the specific restrictions proposed by H.R. 5717: Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020 are not accepted by all. Some of the different measures that would be implemented if this bill would be passed include the following, the requirement for individuals to obtain a license to possess firearms, raise the minimum age for purchasing firearms from 18 years of age to 21, and requires law enforcement to be notified when an individual does not pass a background check (116th Congress, 2020). One issue of this bill that many gun-owners disliked is that this bill would make pistols, revolvers, and other firearms taxable at 30%, and ammunition for those weapons would also be taxable at 50%. The bill states that 39% of tax money will be put towards research and gun violence prevention programs. However, it does not state how the other 61% of the money would be spent (Stellino, 2020). “It has evoked mixed reactions from the public and moved to the forefront of the conversation surrounding legislation not related to the coronavirus pandemic” (Stellino, 2020).
Violence is the prevailing news on the internet and our evening news each passing day. Crime and its prevention usually predominantly feature most campaign speeches for any leader vying for a political office. Violent activities affect not only the victims but also the general welfare of society. This makes gun control a topic of concern in most societal and government gatherings as they seek to define ways of mitigating the violence (Congress.gov. 2020). Violence reduction is of utmost importance to the success of our democracy and social systems. The issue of gun control is not just about the likes or dislikes for guns nor that of gun control. Still, it should be about the government agencies’ effectiveness essentially through various regulations.
Ideological differences between American politicians encompass the choice between less and more invasive roles of the government. All the sides would address that since their suggestions are effective, and those of the opponents are not, dismissing the opponent’s strategies works as a tactic for the opposition to hide their true ambitions (Congress.gov. 2020). However, if all sides were to be considered in the debate about gun control, the concern would not be whether either side advocates for gun control but or violence but which side has the best strategies than the other for reducing gun violence.
The right to keep firearms was added to the U.S. constitution as a part of the bill of rights ratified on December 5th, 1791. The country adopted the amendment after the new formation, with each state maintaining a militia of ordinary citizens having firearms. The amendment indicated that the citizens were well-regulated subject to various requirements such as training and regular military exercises; in the fear that the government would use the army to enforce their will on its citizens, the amendment set to enforce the citizens’ rights in such a scenario. The U.S. supreme court has had various cases in relation to the gun amendment policy, which led to the passing of the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, the first gun control legislation which required firearms to be registered, imposed tax on the manufacture and sale of firearms and restricted sale of high-risk weapons (Congress.gov. 2020).
The NFA was later supported by additional regulations of the 1938 Federal Firearms Act. The other legislations came in 1968 in response to the assassinations of Martin Luther and John Kennedy, prompting the Senate to enact the gun control act. Despite the Act establishing the foundation upon which subsequent legislation was based, the Act’s provisions proved its ineffectiveness. Additionally, in 1986, the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) reduced the Gun Control Act restrictions. Later the Congress in 1993 passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act as an amendment to the 1968 act as a commemoration of James Brady, Reagan’s press secretary. He suffered a fatal wound in the assassination attempt of 1980. the Brady Act expounded on various concerns of the Gun Control Act, with the Act requiring five days before granting a firearm to conduct a check on an individual’s suitability to buy a firearm. By the year 2013, the Act was able to minimize gun related crime to a large extent. In 2015, Richard Hudson, a Republican from the state of Carolina, presented the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act to the Representative house. The Act was passed in 2017 by the house and introduced to the Senate, and it dictates granting permission to possess console guns in a state that allows firearm possession extending to both residents and nonresidents. The bill has, however, faced serious disapproval from gun control advocates. Later in 2020, the Gun Violence and Community Safety Act of 2020 was presented by Ms. Warren to the committee on finance to be passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States (Congress.gov. 2020).
A stakeholder is defined as those directly impacted by specific policy decisions and may be involved in the policymaking process (Mason, p 62, 2016). One of the biggest stakeholders in terms of gun control in American is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The other stakeholders include gun manufacturers, Congress, and gun shows on the internet. The NRA believes in anti-gun control and is so large that Congress is unwilling to disagree with their lobbying firm. The process regarding gun control laws are like any other legislation process, but most bills introduced are rejected. The NRA and the Gun Owners of American (GOA) organize rallies against any bill that has any chance of limiting an individual’s second amendment rights.
Additionally, the gun manufacturers are against any amendment limiting the sale of firearms since this reduces their sales and the citizens’ right to bear arms. Congress is responsible for enacting regulations and has interests in gun control acts. For instance, in 1994, Congress passed a ban on assault weapons with a provision to be lifted after ten years for which it was lifted (Congress.gov. 2020). Congress is additionally involved in discussions about weapon bans and conducting checks. The gun shows that they are primarily responsible for gun sales transactions, which may be legal or illegal. There are websites or private sellers to sell their firearms where they contact buyers through phone or email. The buyers usually avoid background checks and leaving any trails of weapon purchase since transactions are anonymous.
The biggest challenge that stands in the way of implementing this bill would be the stakeholders. As indicated previously, the NRA does not agree with the Act of gun control, citing it against the citizen’s civil rights as indicated in the second amendment, which provided for civilians to possess firearms. The lack of support from the NRA will lead the bill not to be accepted. Despite the bill being new to Congress, a prediction by Skopos Labs indicate only a 2 % chance for the bill to be passed (116th Congress, 2020). The next steps in the process include pushing this bill through the House of Representatives, the publication of a written report, scheduling floor action, a debate, voting, referral to other chambers, conference committee action, and then final actions (Longest, 2015). Additionally, the Gun Owners of America will not likely support the bill since the bill seeks to limit the acquisition of firearms among American citizens. The bill is also likely to be rejected by Congress due to the bill’s high taxes on any person who wishes to possess a firearm.
The policymaking process for most bills is a taxing and difficult path. When it comes to H.R. 5717: Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020, it is still a long way from being declared a law. The bill was first introduced to the House of Representatives on January 30th 2020. The house later referred the bill for review by various committees such as the judiciary committee and the committee on energy and commerce. The committee recently viewed the bill on crime, terrorism and homeland security on March 10th, 2020.
In the U.S., it’s difficult to tighten gun possession rules due to gun ownership for self-protection, as indicated by the Constitution. This second amendment outlines that citizens have the right to possesses and bear arms. For instance, in the U.S. response to the gun massacre, the Sandy Hook massacre in 2012 and the recent Parkland Florida School shooting of 2018 are unbelievable. The attempts to start reforms owing to the occurrence of such tragedies appear hopeless. Despite Barrack Obama’s pledge to push for reforms after the Sandy Hook incident, there was fierce resistance from the NRA and other organizations to defend the Constitution’s right on the second amendment about gun lobbying. Despite America having a right that protects gun ownership, the gun activists fear that the administration’s capacity to prevent gun ownership among civilians due to the recent tragedies. This has prompted NRA members to express their worries that these mobilizations by the gun control activists in other countries such as Australia and New Zealand may give the American activist hope in their push for gun laws reforms in the U.S.
The main gun petition tact criticizes gun control advocates for exploiting a tragedy in targeting gun laws. After a mass shooting, it is the norm for the gun activists and a few politicians to offer prayers in memory of the deceased and oppose that the gun laws need reform. A major response from second amendment supporters is the view that it is not ethically right to utilize a tragedy to further a political philosophy. Of course, the point of not using a tragedy to further a political ideology in such a scenario is deceitful. One of the main points to deduct from such massacres is the purchase process of the military’s weapons, capable of massacre multiple people (Congress.gov. 2020). Depending on how it is viewed, the government’s response or the community always winds up in some political end. Such events inhibit our political lives; thus, it’s the duty of politicians to act in society’s best interest.
Thus, it is the right time for the U.S. to consider ethics and society morals concerning the right to acquire guns. A constitutional right cannot be a human right. People can identify that the second amendment is an old remnant of the 18th century, and modern Americans do not need militias to protect them. However, as a moral concept, a right ought to have a particular meaning, and despite a right being a concept, it needs to be based on the current view of the world and come from our experiences. Owing to the number of massacres experienced in the country and other gun related crimes and instances of violence, the high number of gun possession does not lead to a flourishing and peaceful society. The right to possess guns cannot be considered and right in its good self or worthy of protection due to the multiple tragedies and the statistics about the amount of harm than good it brings to society. Actually, in the case of lobbying for gun ownership is a primary factor hindering ethical progress.
The NASW ethics code does not mention any firearms or their control. Nonetheless, the code indicates various principles and standards, giving guidance on the management of such issues. For instance, standard 1.07(c) recommends that clients break the client’s confidentiality to protect other clients or members of society from any harm. According to the standard, it is a moral principle for the protection of life other than the protection of client confidentiality. Thus according to this principle, restricting firearms ownership is justified and morally right if lives are saved. Despite this, not all social workers believe that life protection is the highest moral principle and suggests that there are various situations when the principle can be exempted.
The introduction to the ethics code recommends that social workers pay consideration to the needs of the vulnerable in society. Hence, gun violence victims are susceptible and should focus on social groups (Barsky, 2019). This again would indicate that the restriction on gun possession, sales, and usage is justified. However, activists of gun rights would argue that gun possession among law abiding citizens provides security to society more than prohibiting the use of guns.
The most effective strategies of gun control are likely to vary subject to the type of gun-related crime we are dealing with, be it teen shootings, terrorist massacres or accidental gun shootings. We can identify the ideal strategies to focus on which have been effective and build on such knowledge. We should also avoid fabricated statistics, personal attacks and misrepresented research since they violate the principle of integrity. This wills lead to difficulty cooperating and solving the problem of gun violence difficult as social workers are equipped with the knowledge and thus can contribute to the debate about gun sale and possession ( Barsky, 2019). People with mental illnesses are at a higher risk of committing violence with firearms; thus, they should not be allowed to possess firearms. The major problem is that when purchasing guns, the seller does not require a psychology report to inform on the mental capacity of an individual to possess a firearm. The new regulation will help since before purchasing a firearm, a background check needs to be conducted to identify the suitability of an individual to possess a firearm.
There is a prevailing gun violence epidemic in the U.S., and health care providers and the American Medical Student Association has requested evidence-based interventions in public health to prevent widespread violence. The physicians and healthcare staff recognize that they have a crucial role to play in response to the ongoing crisis of firearm violence. The Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act will avail future health professionals with recourses to protect the patients’ health and that of the community (Kalesan et al., 2016). The bill will offer an evidence-based methodology to address the problem of gun violence prevalence, decreasing the mortality rate related to gun violence in America.
The health professionals have numerous interests in gun violence discussions owing to the fact they are responsible for treating victims. However, treating the wound should be the last option after exploring all other options (Kalesan et al., 2016). The other options may include advocating for gun control policy and community outreach; American Medical Association, National Medical Association, and other health professional organizations have issued policies indicating that gun violence is a health crisis needing physicians’ involvement.
Firearms are fatal suicide methods, and about 85-91% of suicide attempts using firearms result in death, with men preferring guns as their mode of committing suicide. Conversely, suicide encompasses the leading cause of death among teenagers, with firearms the leading mode of suicide. The utilization of firearms in committing suicide seldom allows reconsideration; thus, more gun possession increases suicides. The unsafe storage of firearms also increases the instances of suicide. The reduction of guns is an effective mode of suicide prevention; thus, the Act will reduce further instances of gun-related suicides (Kalesan et al., 2016).
Additionally, the conducting of background checks on the client’s mental ability to handle a firearm acts as another barrier to prevent such suicides. Also, less access to guns and increased access to psychological health services will decrease the level of suicides. Access to psychological health care for people with mental illness and depression can help prevent attempted suicides through the use of guns.
Furthermore, America has the most gun violence prevalence on women, with the women more likely to die through a firearm than other developed countries. Most of the deaths result from Intimate Partner Violence IPV, with black and American Indian women at a higher risk(Kalesan et al., 2016). In comparison to homes with no guns, the homes with firearms account for thrice the homicide occurrences. If the partner bears a firearm, there is a higher homicide risk, with women facing physical abuse from partners likely to be murdered if the partner possesses a firearm. The enactment of the Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020 will reduce the instances of such homicide. The Act will restrict the sale and possession of guns for persons convicted of domestic violence-related crimes to prevent homicide (Mason, 2016). The Act will allow for a full background check on the individual buying a firearm, thus reducing instances of violence on firearms.
Also, the Act can help in the reduction of unintentional injury through guns. Through clinical interventions and health campaigns focusing on proper storage, it is effective to minimize personal injuries due to guns (Mason, 2016). Additionally, the healthy personnel can help the patient through proper advice on the proper handling and safekeeping of their guns to prevent the occurrence of such accidents.
The bill is currently in the committee stage, waiting for deliberation when sessions resume due to the covid -19 pandemic, which has hindered gatherings. The bill has been read twice and later referred to the finance committee. Later the bill will be considered by the whole house after the committee’s report, where the house will deliberate on the bill and recommendations if any bare to be offered and debated upon and after the house can vote on the final passage. The bill can be voted for a recommitment by opponents who need the bill to be checked again at the committee level(Kalesan et al., 2016). The bill is later presented to the Senate for deliberation before presentation to the president. The Senate may pass the bill or return it to the house for consideration and amendments. Often in case of disputes, the Senate and the House of Representatives form a committee to solve the differences and report the final deliberations to voting houses. After the Senate has approved the bill, the bill will be presented to the president to be signed into law.
Nurses and other healthcare professionals can assist in the implementation of the Act by presenting their views regarding the suitability of the Act to ease the problem of gun violence. The nurses and other health practitioners can help educate the patients and other public members about the Act. Additionally, the taxes collected from the sales of firearms can be granted to the health departments to research gun violence in collaboration with other state-federal departments (Mason, 2016). Additionally, according to the AMAs medical ethics code, health physicians have the responsibility to seek change if the feeling is that the policy is contrary to the patients’ best interest. The physicians can discuss the issue with parents, share their opinions on blogs or newspaper columns, and write an opinion letter to a newspaper editor. Additionally, health professionals, such as nurses, should try talking to their elected officials in the federal government to express their opinions. The voicing of the health practitioners’ concerns will help make a meaningful difference for the patients, communities, and the nation as a whole.
References
116th Congress. (2020, January 30th). H.R. 5717: Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020. Retrieved October 27th, 2020, from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr5717/text
Barsky, A. E. (2019). Ethics and values in social work: An integrated approach for a comprehensive curriculum (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Congress.gov. (2020, March 10th). All Info – H.R.5717 – 116th Congress (2019-2020): Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020. Retrieved October 27, 2020, from https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5717/all-info
Follman M, Lurie J, Lee J, West J. The true cost of gun violence in America. The data the NRA doesn’t want you to see. Mother Jones. Accessed April 2nd, 2018.
GovTrack.us. (, 2020). H.R. 5717 — 116th Congress: Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020. Retrieved from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr5717
Longest, B. B. (2015). Health policymaking in the united states. Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press.
Kalesan B, Mobily ME, Keiser O, Fagan JA, Galea S. Firearm legislation and firearm mortality in the USA: a cross-sectional, state-level study. The Lancet. 2016; 387(10030):1847-1855.
Mason, D. (2016). Policy & Politics in Nursing and Health Care. St. Louis, MO: American Nurses Association.
Stellino, M. (2020, May 25th). Fact check: Democrat’s bill would increase taxes on firearms and ammunition. Retrieved October 27, 2020, from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/24/fact-check-bill-would- increase-taxes-firearms-and-ammunition/5231813002/
Vargas, E. (2019, November 20th). Gun Violence in America: A State-by-State Analysis. Retrieved October 27, 2020, from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns- crime/news/2019/11/20/477218/gun-violence-America-state-state-analysis/