In June 2008, the Supreme Court was asked in District of Columbia v. Heller to consider whether a District of Columbia provision that made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibited the general registration of handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. The petitioner, Dick Heller, was a D.C. special police office authorized to carry a handgun on duty. Heller sued the District of Columbia for violating his Second Amendment right when his one-year application to keep his handgun at home for personal use was denied. Arguably the most controversial amendment of the constitution in present-day, the Second Amendment reads, “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right
This article explains the Second Amendment in The U.S. Constitution of the right to keep and bear arms. This article talks about the Second Amendment before and after the case of Heller, after being that it now permits every American citizen the right to keep and bear arms not just military personnel. Krasnicka is the author of many publications, has her doctorates in law, and is a Professor in the Department of Public International Law at the University in Bialystok, Poland. This article targets the general U.S. population and was used for background information on the Second Amendment in The U.S. Constitution.
When debating the wisdom of the Constitution’s Second Amendment, the media tends to start from the presumption that the question is purely scientific, and that the answers can — and should — be derived from statistical analyses and relentless experimentation. This approach is mistaken. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not the product of the latest research fads or exquisitely tortured “data journalism,” but a natural extension of the Lockean principles on which this country was founded. It must be protected as such. The Declaration of Independence presumes that all men enjoy certain inalienable rights, among them “life” and “liberty.”
Alito began by explaining the historical context of the Bill of Rights and the concept of Selective Incorporation through Due Process Clause of the fourteenth amendment. Though, historically, the second amendment had yet to be incorporated, Alito clarified the importance of doing so now by mentioning the fundamental nature of self-defense and how the right to bear arms is necessarily one means of guaranteeing self-defense. Alito justified the need to incorporate the second amendment by citing the historical use of the fourteenth amendment to do so with other Bill Rights amendments, and by pointing out the importance of holding the right to bear arms to similar standards vis-à-vis the other rights within the Bill of Rights. Lastly, Alito deemed the privileges and immunities question to be superfluous since the Court had already determined the right to bears arms to be substantive guarantee under the fourteenth
The question on whether the 2nd Amendment in the U.S. should be changed or not has become a widely discussed and argued topic as of recent, due to recurring incidents of shootings occurring on U.S. soil by its own inhabitants. While many would be in support of the right to bear arms, including myself, I do believe that the current gun laws need to be made more restrictive than they are in their current state, for the sake of the country and the safety of its people. I’m well aware that I am not a U.S. citizen and that I have no say in what decisions are made there regarding the country’s constitution, but I feel that what I have to say is shared by many of America’s people and that it’s not only Americans that are affected by guns but also those who are visiting the country from abroad. There are many problems regarding America’s very unrestrictive gun laws at present, whether it’s the fact that there is no federal minimum age for possession of a long gun, or the fact that individuals don’t
The Second Amendment 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.” Gun rights has become the subject of intense political, social, and cultural battles for much of the last century. The pro-gun right side has asserted that the right to arms was absolute, and that any gun control laws infringed that right (Kopel, 2013). This right has been supported by the Supreme Court who has reinforced what has become the American consensus that the Second Amendment allows the right to keep and bear arms, especially for self-defense, and that it is a fundamental individual
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
In my first case, I will analyze the Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. In this case, in a 5-4 decision, the Court overrules its decision in United States v. Miller, in which, it stated that the Second Amendment only protects the right to keep and bear arms in relation with service in a well-regulated, government sponsored militia. In the majority opinion of Heller, Scalia divides the Second Amendment into two parts: the prefatory clause and the operative clause. The prefatory clause is the first half of the Second Amendment, it reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” while the operative clause is the second half of the Amendment: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
Since the Second Amendments’ ratification in 1791, Americans still debate with one another, because of its many controversy views. The amendment allows every citizen of the United States the right to own guns and to defend themselves when in danger. The problem arises when the laws being set are restricting people from their rights. There are so many gun control laws, varying from state to state. The development of arguments surrounding gun control correlates to the increased violence and altercations related to the use of fire weapons.
Since the begining of America, the Founding Fathers wrote the strong-standing Bill of Rights with amendments to protect the country that had just recently won their freedom, but one amendment has been the top theme of controversies for centuries. Gun laws offend the Bill of Rights in so many ways and they prove ineffective. Gun Laws are relevant due to thousands of deaths and self-protection. The argument goes on but without guns there is militia, one of the main intents of the Second Amendment. These simple rules can reduce deaths, proven by millions of influential people.
The right to bear arms has been a controversial issue ever since James Madison established it as the second amendment of the constitution. The second amendment states, “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” (US Const. amend. II). Those in favor of the second amendment, believe that arms are used for protection, dangerous situations, and sports.
Today in the United States of America, the gun control is the top issue. Over 350 people die from gun shooting accidents, which results in the president to review the second amendment, the right to carry a concealed handgun (“Police one” internet). The citizens of the United States find it their right to bear arms, however guns get in the wrong hands. In order to carry a weapon, people must have a weapon license, and required an intensive background check to obtain the weapon. More often than not concealed handguns have a negative effect on society than positive.
C. Precedent The law is unconstitutional not only due to the meaning of the text itself, but also from many cases of precedent. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) have already established the importance of the Second Amendment, but there are other cases as well that back up the courts decision claiming the ban on carrying a concealed weapon is unconstitutional. In Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Litt. 90, (KY 1822), established that the right to bear arms was for defense against themselves and the state. This case consisted of a man carrying a concealed weapon in his cane and it is similar to the one in which we face today.