Firearms Violate The Second Amendment

1616 Words7 Pages
The District of Columbia (D.C.) enacted in 1976 the, Firearms Control Regulations act of 1975, this legislation prohibited individuals from possessing firearms that are currently not registered as well as banning the registration of handguns following 1975. Though the police chief may authorize the issuing of licenses with a validation of one year, this provision requires that individuals who possess a legally obtained firearm, disassemble their weapon and bind it with a trigger lock ("District of Columbia v. Heller", Oyez). The issue at hand, which is the restriction of Second Amendment rights, began when D.C. special policeman Dick Heller, in the hopes that he could possess a firearm while at home, was refused a license when he attempted…show more content…
versus Heller was a landmark case that dealt with the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. The question asked by the court was whether or not the D.C. provisions that regulate firearms violate the Second Amendment? In a five to four decision made by the Supreme Court of the United States, it was affirmed that the Second Amendment, pertaining to federal enclaves, safeguards a person’s right to own a firearm for “traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” (Syllabus). This marked the first case by the Supreme Court that determined Second Amendment rights for individuals to keep and bear…show more content…
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 majorities’ interpretation of the Second Amendment as Scalia states, is
Open Document