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). In the 2010 follow-up case McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court found that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms” granted by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (10-11, 33-34). This meant that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments in the same manner it limits the federal government. Thus, at this moment in time individual Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Nevertheless, the debate on the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms continues unabated, with strong camps both in support and in
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.
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.
One of the founding fathers, James Madison, originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified. He proposed it as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard. It was deemed a compromise between Federalists and anti- Federalists. Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government. People believe that this doesn’t mean anything in today’s standards, they believe the reason this bill was made was to defend and fight against the English.
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
The Second Amendment of the Constitution clearly 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.” Humans having ownership of a gun is a American tradition, thus is older than the country itself, and the second amendment protects this tradition. If America was to enforce more gun control laws, thus would interfere with the second amendment. The Second Amendment is a right therefore a person is not forced
In order to go deep into the meaning of our right to bear arms, you must know the basics. The right to bear arms gave us the power to bear arms to protect our constitution. Many civilizations like the British did not allow their civilians to bear arms giving them absolute power. The writers of the constitution wanted the citizens to be able to protect their rights. It also states that we have the right to a Militia, which to date is our national guard.
Roosevelt 's executive order 9066, was legal because the executive order was issued during war, Some might say it was illegal because it was going against ‘equal protection of the law ' clause of the 14th Amendment. Supreme Court justified the executive order as a wartime necessity (http://www.ushistory.org/us/51e.asp.). Laws can also give additional powers to the President but when using an executive order, the Congress can override it with a new law. In section 1 of the 14th amendment, it states that all natural citizens should be treated fairly and there should be no state enforcing a law to abridge the rights and privileges of citizens; without due process of laws. Therefore, President Roosevelt created an executive order, creating the
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads “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” (McClain and Tauber, 516). Controversy has aroused because of the interpretation of this amendment. In a modern society, the meaning of “Militia” is “a group of people who are not part of the armed forces of a country but are trained like soldiers” (“Militia”, Merriam-Webster). As a matter of fact, the debate on gun control was settled in 1791, that is over 200 years ago and a lot has changed since then. During that time, civilians were obligated to participate if their state was on battle, it was necessary for individuals to bear guns at home.
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.