John Paul Stevens once said that "the Framer 's single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee 'to keep and bear arms ' was on military use of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias.” New York University School of Law shows that there is nothing about an individual’s right to bear arms the notes about the Second Amendment, when it was being created. The US Supreme Court declined to rule in favor of a persons right to bear arms four times between 1876 and 1939. From 1888 to 1959, all law articles on the second amendment stated that an individuals right to bear arms was not
The constitution states that “...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. (US Const. amend.II) The right to bear arms is just as important as the right to free speech. The second amendment was put in the Constitution for a reason, and no one has the right to take away any of the rights given to the people by the United States Constitution. The moment the right to bear arms gets taken away, the government has free reign to take away more rights.The second amendment was not just meant for the people to just own firearms.
Chris was depressed and angered with the world, and he was mentally ill (biography.com). People that choose to do bad with a gun are mentally ill. The gun is not what kills the people. The second amendment starts with “a well regulated militia,” which someone people interpret as only soldiers should have guns. United States Supreme Court ruled in 2008 and 2010 that the reference to militia is just an explanation of why Congress ratified the amendment (civil-rights.lawyers.com).
The second amendment is an amendment to the United States of America’s constitution on control of guns. It allows for a well-regulated militia as a necessity to security of a free state without limiting the right of the people to own guns (Lithwick). Daniel J. Schultz interprets the intended meaning of this amendment based the terms used in the amendment. Schultz notes that the term “well-regulated” as used in the second amendment brings some misunderstanding. In today’s English the term means a strict government regulation while its intention was not to have national government’s regulation.
Does the federal government have implied power or do states have reserved power over the Second Amendment? The Second Amendment to the Constitution says: “ 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.” (Patterson) This amendment has been at the center of debate since it was ratified. Moreover, the controversy over the Second Amendment revolves around two related questions of government authority: does the government have the right to impose regulations, and should the government regulate guns? Some believe the federal government should regulate guns, so all Americans have to follow the same rules to purchase firearms instead of states regulating
Heller (2008) this decision was overturned. In this landmark decision the Supreme Court ruled that “[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual 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 (2-53). With this ruling the Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 which required that all firearms be kept be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock” (sec. 702). The Supreme Court held that “[t]he operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms” (District of Columbia v. Heller 2-22).
The first argument often rolled out by gun-grabbers is a textual one, claiming that the Second Amendment itself does not actually defend individuals’ right to keep and bear arms, but instead outlines the need for an armed “well-regulated militia.” According to progressives, that first phrase, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” indicates that the purpose of the amendment is to establish and maintain a regulated militia whose purpose is to defend the state. On this interpretation, the amendment does not secure the right of individuals to own weapons as individuals. There are two counters to this claim that demonstrate how facile it is. The first argument is simply a matter of understanding the grammar
Harold Staples was convicted under the National Firearms Act for unlawfully possessing a fully automatic assault rifle that was not properly registered with the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Records. Staples claimed he had no idea that the gun could fire automatically. At the trial Staples requested a jury instruction that he could not be found guiltily unless there was proof that he knew the gun was fully automatic. The trial judge ruled that the National Firearms Act did not require knowledge or mens rea but that it was a strict liability crime. The Appellate Court affirmed the conviction.
putting some control back into the hands of the people) it also blurs the lines as to what violates the Constitution and what does not. For example, the Second Amendment reads, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." While that may be a basic right given to Americans, one wonders the definition of “arms”. Does that mean people have the right to own a revolver or pistol, or does it mean they can own weapons as extreme as AK-47s, bazookas or grenades? If the framers were drafting the document today, each article and amendment would need to be much lengthier in order to specify what is constitutional and what is not.
In 1637 about 100 Massachusetts Bay colonists were ordered to surrender their “guns, pistols, swords, powder, shot & match”, said Barbara Mantel. In 1813, Kentucky and Louisiana became the first states to ban the carrying of concealed weapons. In 1986, the NRA scored a victory when President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Firearm Owners ' Protection Act. Currently about six states must have insurance on their gun. “Insurance will cover you if your home burns down in an electrical fire, but it will not cover you if you burn down your own house, and you cannot insure yourself for arson,” said Robert P. Hartwig, Garen Wintemute had some very good points to back up his belief.
Guns can be weapons of destruction or a form of self-protection depending on the user and the training of that particular person. Being trained by a firearms instructor can help users know the importance of firearm safety and how to properly use firearms. Firearms are to be used for self-protection and war. Also taking away firearms is against the 2nd amendment according to the United States Constitution--"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." Therefore, banning firearms is against the United States Constitution.