Essay Against The Second Amendment

Two years ago, in June of 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that District of Columbia’s law which banned its citizens from keeping a handgun in their home violated the Second Amendment, which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. When looking back on this case, it must be noted that the Supreme Court did not clearly define whether or not the Second Amendment applied to the States, since the District of Columbia is a federal territory, run solely by Congress. Fast forward to today in Oak Park, which is a suburb of Chicago, they have laws in place that ban almost all citizens from possessing a handgun. Otis McDonald, Adams Orlov, Colleen Lawson, and David Lawson filed a suit against the city, stating this ban has left them without a proper tool for self-defense against criminals, and that it violates their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

By definition

Supreme Court in 1873, “ruled that a citizen 's "privileges and immunities," as protected by the Constitution 's Fourteenth Amendment against the states, were limited to those spelled out in the Constitution and did not include many rights given by the individual states.” Today, the petitioners believe that their right to keep and bear arms is in fact protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and, this “narrow interpretation” of the clause should be dismissed. I would have to agree with this because even though the Slaughterhouse cases were the first to deal with the Fourteenth Amendments Privileges or Immunities Clause, it is the complete wrong analysis of it in modern times. This clause sets out to protect the Bill of Rights. Elaborate on P or I clause

Due Process Clause Paragraph

The Fourteenth Amendment through the Due Process Clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause does in fact make the Second Amendments right to keep and bear arms entirely pertinent to the