To Justice Scalia, this means that the individual has “the right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” (Scalia, 4). The question at stake, however, is not whether the individual or collective is protected but the scope of the right in question. In other words, while it is clear that the amendment protects the right to use guns for military services but does not protect its use for crimes, what rights does it encompass in between those extremities, such as the right to carry a weapon for personal self-defense? A more natural reading of the amendment, where the prefactory clause is read chronologically before the operative clause, shows the text’s intent to solely protect the rights of militia. This is proven, as pointed out in the dissent, by the fact that states such as Virginia and Pennsylvania explicitly articulated in their Declaration of Rights at the time the separate right of individuals to bear arms for self-defense.
Owning a gun is not a bad thing, in fact, it is a right that every American should have access to. It 's written within the constitution right next to our freedom of speech. So it is not unreasonable for Americans to expect to not be troubled when someone wants to buy one. However, America 's gun problem does not stem from simply wanting to own a gun. The true issue is the type of firearms Americans have access to.
The second amendment states that people have a right to bear arms under a well-regulated militia. This amendment was added to the Bill of Rights because the Americans had just finished fighting The American Revolution with the British government for independence-- Gun control by the British was one of the catalysts of this war. With the revolution fresh in mind, the Americans had registered that there was a need to unite and form a union; however, some Americans felt that a union could result in something similar to the tyranny that the British had imposed on them. They were hesitant of placing the power on a small handful of people-- The second amendment helped take some power from the government and give it to the people.
“How did the Constitution Guard Against Tyranny” In 1787, the delegate decided to meet up in Philadelphia to write the Constitution. The Constitution decided to guard against tyranny in many different ways, which was the Federalism, Separation of Powers, Check and Balance, and Small and Large States. The first guard against tyranny was the Federalism, which was the Central and State Government. The reason Federalism is protected from tyranny is because they want to make sure that the state and national governments have power but not too much, where they can come to powerful (Document A)
The Second Amendment provides: “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). The right of the people to keep and bear Arms should not be contravened, if militia is well regulated. However, how can someone tell what is a well regulated Militia? There are many countries in the world where forbid people from using or wield arm, and those countries national security is ensured just as well as it is in the United States or even more ensured than it is in here.
One of the most controversial issues our nation faces today is gun control laws. This controversy has been created due to the different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution which states the right of citizens to bear arms; “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” (Cornell Law School). Anti-gun control laws believe that the amendment guarantees the right to bear any kind of firearms. On the other hand, we have does that believe that more controls laws should be implemented since the 2nd amendment was for the right of States to have an armed militia during wartime. Both sides have strong point, however, the safety of our children comes first, and a firearm means death in the wrong hands.
Heller.", Oyez). Furthermore, in dealing with the text of the Constitution as well as the history, the court held that “militia” will not be limited to citizens currently in the armed forces but, “…comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense” (Syllabus). The majority felt that due to the period in which the Constitution was penned, to define the Second Amendment as restrictive, and allotting the right to possess firearms to those only serving in the United States military, would be to juxtapose what was expected of the Amendment and enact a state-sponsored power that the Constitution was trying to safeguard the people from ("District of Columbia v. Heller. ", Oyez). Therefore, in correlation to the original and plain meaning of the Second Amendment, the operative clause as Scalia stated, should be interpreted to “…protect 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” (Syllabus).
The second alteration says, "A very much controlled civilian army being important to security of a free express, the privilege of the general population to keep and carry weapons should not be encroached. " The second revision was made for two things. It arrives for to begin with, to ensure the people right to have arms for self-protection and self-conservation. The second reason is identified with the volunteer army.
The amendment is referencing the freedom of people to form military groups and own guns, not just everyday men. 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.” During this time period (around 1776), militias (meaning people who formed groups to protect themselves and their homes) were used because of the country’s lack of an organized military (“The Second Amendment”). In today’s society, America has several branches of defense, including the Army, Air Force, Navy, the police, and more. There is simply no reason for civilians to form militias when they have so many organizations to defend them.
The second amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms. It was ratified on December 17, 1791. According to laws.com, “As passed by the Congress: 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. As ratified by the 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.” The second amendment, like all the other first ten amendments, is a part of the Bill of Rights, which was meant to keep the people as free as possible.
There would be a huge debate about the Second Amendment and opponents will argue about how the Second Amendment also referred to individuals in America and how the amendment protects individual gun ownership. Chairperson of Revolution PAC, Lawrence Hunter, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to bear laws is as primary and as essential to maintaining liberty. The rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty described in the Bill of Rights.” Supporters might argue and state how its original meaning was intended to protect the militia, but opponents believe otherwise. Opponents of more female protection might say that Gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime.
However, Heller overturns this decision by the means of Scalia’s interpretation of the Second Amendment provided above. Since the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause does not limit its operative clause, the Amendment can be interpreted as an individual right available to all citizens of the United States, not just those who serve in a
United States v. Miller Kalyn Reading The case of the United States vs Miller is an intriguing case to say the least. It started with two men trying to transport sawed off shotguns and ended with a little bit of blood and some prison time. This was a case best explain by Doctor Brian L Frye in his paper The Peculiar Story of United States vs. Miller. “On June 2, 1938, Miller and Layton were both indicted on one count of violating 26 U.S.C. § 1132(c) by transporting an untaxed short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce.
The Second Amendment is a frequently debated topic in today’s society. 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.” The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791 when the Bill of Rights were passed. The Amendment was easily accepted because of the majority consensus that the government should not have the ability to take weapons away from people. In many countries, corrupt governments use armed soldiers and other arms to control and oppress people.