San Andreas is currently undergoing an unchecked explosion of criminal activity. Through every passing moment, another crime is committed on our streets by individuals looking to harm the families of those residing within the various municipalities across the state. We observe these crimes through the passive lens of our neighbors, who complain about the constant break-ins in Mission Row or Strawberry. We see the concern of our friends when they want to hang out, except, we live in Little Seoul and they’re concerned about their safety. Dead bodies appear on the street every day, often going hours before they’re collected, especially in the early morning hours. The perpetrators who commit these crimes are not law-abiding citizens by any means, no. As a matter of fact? Most law-abiding citizens, who undergo the due processes required by law, will never see the inside of a cell. Most law-abiding citizens, who undergo these same processes, will always do what they can to function within the law established by their elected officials.

So why does the San Andreas Government assume those same individuals won’t? Gun control is a contentious issue in the United States. States like Texas and Florida have taken objective stances against the measures, employing them only in the most limited capacities. Other states, such as New Hampshire and West Virginia, have outright refused to adopt gun control measures and have gone the extra mile to ensure that their constituents are given easier access to firearm possession. The lack of regulation towards firearms in these states can also be linked to the culture. For example? In New Hampshire and West Virginia (which we will now refer to as NH and WV) gun ownership is linked to recreational pastimes such as hunting, or marksmanship competitions. Self-defence is among these cultural tendencies where citizens generally feel safe in their cities, yet many believe that in their homes, the response time of emergency services will be too slow, leaving them with no choice but to rely on their ability to protect themselves. But what about other states, such as Texas?

Texas is a state that has almost always been culturally associated with the possession or erroneous use of firearms in a civilized society. They are also one of ten states that have appointed an official “State Firearm” associated with its cultural identity. Texans believe that ownership of a firearm is not only their given right (as it is per the 2nd Amendment), but that it is a necessity to protect their “sovereign interests.” Sovereignty in the context of this argument is not justified as a means of independence or separation from the Union but is instead used as an interest to protect citizens' rights and the interests of those who they hold are “inherently American.” Furthermore, Texans pride themselves on their shooting competitions, with the ownership of firearms veering further from the formation of basic self-defence to a competition of, quite literally, whose gun is bigger than the others.

Gun violence seems to be closely linked to the culture of a particular state. In NH and WV, firearms are promoted as tools for responsible civilian use and are highly regarded within the community. It is common for families to participate in gun safety briefings, and gun safety courses are affordable and easily accessible to new gun owners. New owners are often encouraged to bring family members to these sessions and to invest in secure storage options, such as gun safes or lockers. However, this promotion of safety and responsibility is not driven by the government, but rather by businesses like Ammu-Nation, community organizations like the NRA, and local community members.

Texas continues this tradition, but it mainly upholds its legacy of responsible gun ownership in rural areas. While urban centers do have responsible gun ownership communities and businesses, fearmongering from far-right and radicalized groups has led to extreme reactions. The 2024 film Civil War depicts an America torn apart by cultural divides between states. In the film, states must rise against a president who unilaterally extends his term to a third, engaging in several acts that the viewers are informed as tyrannical and authoritarian. Texans are part of the "Western Forces" (WF), a group dedicated to "preserving the American Constitution, American Values, and ultimately reforming the “New United States." This cultural perspective is not just confined to the movie but is also shared by many residents in Texas, as well as in other southern states like New Mexico, Alabama, Florida, and even parts of San Andreas.

While yes, preserving the United States and protecting its constitution is the duty of every citizen, there is a limit to such power. And this limit is where gun control measures come into play. District of Columbia vs. Heller is a prime example of firearm restrictions taken too far. Through the ruling, members of the US Supreme Court dictated that while yes, the interpretation of the Second Amendment is culturally relevant, it also depends on the stakes of the citizenry. The decision dictated that the Executive, Federal Assembly, State Assemblies, and Municipal Assemblies could apply restrictions to firearms ownership, however must do so in a way that is meaningful and does not impact an American's ability to possess arms against a potentially foreign threat. They concluded the proceedings by clarifying that the militia pretext was a matter of subjectivity according to the needs of the US Government in times of war or peace, but that it was an important matter for additional review.

Where does San Andreas stand in the broader landscape of gun ownership and its challenges? We are on the edge of total collapse. To put things into perspective, New Hampshire has a population of 1.4 million, West Virginia has 1.7 million, Texas has 30.5 million, and San Andreas has a population of 38.9 million. Comparatively, New Hampshire and West Virginia both have only one recorded incident of a “mass shooting.” For NH, it was the 1997 Carl Drega murders that killed four people, and for WV, it was the 2020 Williamsburg massacre, which killed five children. In each of these instances, members of the attacks were either targeted or byproducts of a targeted assault. Texas, on the other hand, has had numerous mass and public shootings engaged at citizens, and police officers. This targeted focus isn’t to discredit gun-related crime as well, which maintains its respective ratio per citizenry in each state, with NH and WV maintaining a substantially lower ratio than Texas and San Andreas comparatively.

San Andreas has had numerous mass shootings, albeit on different scales. Most of our mass shootings are crime-related, not associated with mental illness or inappropriate ownership of legal firearms. Instead, the majority of firearms in our state come from illegal sources, including ports, interstate smuggling with serial numbers removed, and criminal organizations that maintain ties with foreign governments—effectively engaging in espionage and treason to varying degrees. Across the United States, you will hear plans of action from members of government agencies, including elected officials, about how they will stop the introduction of firearms to their constituent's territory. Progress reports are given and updates are provided publicly whilst following a bust. In San Andreas? Large-scale drug busts and firearms collections are seldom. Individuals are arrested and put out the door on reduced sentences as part of the rapid rehabilitation program that the state has implemented. Criminals aren’t followed or tracked to keep an eye on them once they’ve been released. Parole officers don’t actively follow up or keep track of parolees once they’re free. Instead? They’re given free reign.

In San Andreas, the majority of gun violence is committed by convicts or those affiliated with a gang. It is seldom that you hear of indirect gun violence associated with criminal elements enterprised by someone who has taken all of the appropriate precautions to secure a firearm within the legal means. San Andreas is one of only fourteen states that require a firearms license to permit ownership of a firearm. In San Andreas, getting a Personal Firearms license is a simplistic process. If you’re a law-abiding citizen and you want the right to protect your home? The state is more than willing to give that to you. However, there are a few measures. First? You can’t own a semi-automatic rifle. You can only own a rifle designated from their list of official hunting rifles, and that’s if you can afford a hunting license. Even then? You’re expected to keep it concealed, in a case, at all times. Most shooting ranges won’t accompany these rifles either, stating calibre concerns.

Marksmanship competitions are nonexistent in San Andreas. The state's gun culture is primarily focused on hunting and self-defence, at least among legal gun owners. However, there exists a subculture within our society, much like in Texas, wherein urban residents believe that guns could be used as a tool to “negotiate” for their safety, or for better arrangements. This belief in “hostile negotiations” stems mostly from the aforementioned criminal elements, law-abiding citizens only using their firearms in such a way to try and negotiate their livelihood on the streets. Responsible gun ownership is preached by members of the LSPD, LSSD, and municipal/state governments but is given very few resources. The lack of involvement from our agencies and the lack of care to propel a gun-safe culture has led to the tabooification of ownership. This taboo ultimately leads to fewer citizens understanding the criticality of ownership and its effects on a civil population, while also eliminating a potential hobby for citizens.

The elimination of gun ownership as a hobby has led to various critiques, including the one presented in this article. The SHAFT Act is simply unconstitutional. It prohibits our right as American Citizens to protect our country in the event of foreign threat. Criminals frequently acquire firearms through foreign agencies operating by proxy within our state. Posts on Facebrowser often go unnoticed by the LSPD, where individuals openly display weapons that appear to be Russian AKs, Israeli Uzis, and even German and French firearms—models that are particularly difficult to obtain on the West Coast. This raises a simple but pressing question: How? It’s illegal to source these weapons within our state. The State Sheriffs and Highway Patrol are generally effective at preventing interstate firearm transactions and blocking the flow of guns through travelling citizens.

And what of legal firearms transactions? When we allowed citizens to purchase rifles that could defend their homes. That could protect their loved ones. We need no more than to look at the 1992 LS Riots. K-Town emerged as a haven for those looking to flee the riots. The term “rooftop Koreans” affectionately applied to Korean families who stood on the roofs of their businesses, protecting those who sought shelter and protecting the interests of their estates. We saw these citizens with a variety of armament, shotguns and rifles, pistols and submachine guns. All of them were used not against the passive protesters, but against the rioters who may have sought to inflict damage upon their properties or their families. These affectionate citizens who took to their roofs to defend their homes provide an excellent example of responsible gun ownership, and self-defence done right. They acted in the interest of their property and their family. Only firing when necessary to do so, and issuing warning shots to those who began harassing them openly in the streets. All the while? The LSPD remained helpless to resolve the problem, and to provide the safety needed to the communities of Little Seoul and La Puerta.

Law-abiding citizens, if given the chance, can own a firearm responsibly. Why does the government trust us not to? Simple. Their inability to resolve the problems with the San Andreas Crime Epidemic has led them to fear the basic citizens. Crimes go unsolved, guns go unfound, and drugs remain rampant on the streets. Kids walk into clothing stores and whisper to everyone around if they’d like to buy drugs. Groups of people enter clubs and take up a booth, only to use them as fronts for their smuggling operations, turning a basic law-abiding establishment into a hot spot of crime. Criminals have such confidence that they can act without impunity they even post their crimes on Facebrowser. And all the while? Offices are law enforcement are pushed against the matter. Citizens aren’t encouraged to take arms to defend themselves and are instead punished. Firearms are confiscated for weeks to months at a time pending an “investigation” that will never truly be resolved about a self-defence incident.

The SHAFT Act also provides an added layer for those seeking to gain concealed carry permits. While this is only required in the municipality of Los Santos, it provides another critical concern listed by the State towards the trust of the citizens. And to this extent? The concern is valued. A law-abiding citizen will achieve a CCW after answering a series of questions about their acknowledgement of gun safety, and legal discharge. Many states and scholars have argued that requiring such a device is unconstitutional. They cite concerns over personal safety and how it restricts one's ability. The only concern I would like to explore is that if a test was to be applied for any level of firearms licensing in the State of San Andreas, then that test needs to be applied universally. Concealed Carry Permits should only serve as an administration buffer. A small fee to have the right to defend your person. And, in the presence of a CCW system, open-carry should not be held illegally. Instead, two-point holsters should be permitted just as they are out in Blaine County.

Blaine County gets gun ownership rights. They’re a prime example of what the civilian element can look like if the Second Amendment is protected. The county receives a significantly limited impact by the SHAFT Act, and you see it. Crime Rates are held low, with many of the “criminal elements” resisting impacting the lives of the daily citizenry. Citizens walk with holsters strapped to their hips, prepared to protect themselves at a moment's whim if needed. And the Sheriffs? They understand. They high-five everyone who walks around, give them a broad smile and even offer to help them cover the cost of their next magazine after going to the shooting range. Sandy Shores, despite all of the criticism it’s received for being the heart of San Andreas’ crack epidemic, is one of the best places to live as a gun owner. Paleto Bay is one of the best places to live as a gun owner in San Andreas. Both municipalities replicate the culture that’s presented in New Hampshire & West Virginia, hailing responsible gun ownership above all else.

It is therefore that I lay my claim to the violation of the Second Amendment. By preventing citizens of San Andreas from defending themselves and by providing unnecessary checks that provide inconsistent gun ownership, even though the State claims that it is done to protect individuals with informed ownership, the State has in turn failed to adhere to the constitution. Every American maintains the right to bare arms and do so responsibly. And it is the government's responsibility to ensure that we adapt this meaning to the modern age. In this modern age, it is where we find that we are now, more than ever, at risk of both foreign and internal threats. Criminals will only subside their activities against law-abiding citizens if the risk factor is greater than the reward. And as it stands? You cannot defend your home without facing some form of repercussion. Short-term, or long-term. You cannot stop yourself from being mugged in the street, or provide an ample deterrent where members of the police otherwise fail.

The state of San Andreas stands at a critical juncture in terms of gun ownership and its associated challenges. The state has long been plagued by a rise in criminal activity, much of which is perpetuated by illegal firearms flowing into our communities. While legal gun ownership is relatively accessible, it is often undermined by the sheer volume of weapons trafficked in from foreign sources or smuggled across state lines. This, coupled with an insufficient response from law enforcement and a general lack of resources allocated to addressing gun violence, leaves law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminal elements. With the government failing to adequately combat the criminal epidemic that continues to destabilize our state, it seems inevitable that the ability of responsible citizens to defend themselves will continue to be compromised.

Furthermore, the debate over gun ownership is not just about self-defense or hunting, but about the cultural fabric of states like Texas, New Hampshire, and West Virginia, where firearms are deeply woven into the way of life. These states demonstrate a model where responsible gun ownership is promoted not by the government, but by local communities, businesses, and organizations. In contrast, San Andreas has largely neglected to foster this kind of culture, leading to a misunderstanding of firearm safety and responsibility. The failure to promote marksmanship competitions or gun safety training, along with a lack of emphasis on secure storage practices, only further entrenches the taboo surrounding gun ownership and exacerbates the state's crime problems.

The SHAFT Act, in particular, represents an unconstitutional overreach that undermines the Second Amendment and the fundamental rights of citizens in San Andreas. While gun control is a complex issue, the overregulation in San Andreas has created a situation where responsible citizens are unfairly burdened by inconsistent laws and restrictions. The state's approach to gun ownership is fraught with contradictions, where the law makes it easier for criminals to acquire firearms while making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. This failure to adequately balance public safety with individual rights only serves to empower criminal elements, who are emboldened by the state's inability to enforce its laws.

Finally, it is important to recognize that responsible gun ownership can serve as a deterrent to crime, as demonstrated by examples from San Andreas' rural communities like Blaine County and Paleto Bay. These areas, which have lower crime rates and greater acceptance of firearms, show that when citizens are trusted to own and carry firearms responsibly, they are better equipped to protect themselves and their communities. However, the current policies in urban areas, which treat responsible gun ownership as a liability rather than a right, have contributed to the erosion of public safety. It is time for the government to reevaluate its stance on gun control, ensuring that the rights of citizens to bear arms and defend their homes are upheld in a manner that is both responsible and effective. Only then can we begin to address the underlying issues of crime and violence that continue to plague San Andreas.