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. This amendment was for the citizens to defend themselves in case of emergencies, back when the amendment was created, for defending themselves against British being one example. The people could not defend themselves when the British housed themselves inside the American homes. The framers’ intent was for the militia to be well regulated, just not as we would think nowadays, being …show more content…
Chicago 2010, the second amendment over rules Chicago’s handgun ban. The people of the city said they felt vulnerable and brought this ban to attention. Rejecting the petitioners would have been unconstitutional, so they brought it to the Supreme Court. The judgement was reversed, and the case remanded. According to guncite.com, the petitioners had based their case on two things-“Primarily, they argue that the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the Slaughter-House Cases’ narrow interpretation of the Clause should now be rejected. As a secondary argument, they contended that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates the Second Amendment right. Chicago and Oak Park (municipal respondents) maintain that a right set out in the Bill of Rights applies to the States only when it is an indispensable attribute of any “‘civilized’ ” legal
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms. When the Second Amendment was written it was for the right to arm oneself as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, gun advocates proclaim that guns are for the right to self-defense. Some people try to participate and uphold the law. We have seen how guns in the hands of children can cause fatal accidents and people have committed mindless crimes leading to
Through court cases like District of Columbia v. Heller, the Second Amendment was clarified to extend the right to possess firearms for “traditionally lawful purposes” from simply militia related services. McDonald v. Chicago further expanded the application of the Second Amendment by holding that it was applicable to states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, these two cases were tied together as the Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller that the right to self-defense was a “fundamental” and “deeply rooted” right which in turn allowed the Supreme Court to rule that based on the 14th Amendment and the precedent established in the Heller case that the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee of the right to bear arms was applicable to states for the purpose of self-defense. There are three
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
Chicago (State Case) 5-4 under the opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that rights that are "fundamental to the Nation 's scheme of ordered liberty" or that are "deeply rooted in this Nation 's history and tradition" are appropriately applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court recognized in Heller that the right to self-defense was one such "fundamental" and "deeply rooted" right (McDonald v. Chicago. (n.d.)). The previous cases are what gives people the right to bear arms in the United States with the injunction of the constitution.
The District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) considered the constitutionality of The District of Columbia law banning the possession of handguns. The Court upheld the federal appeals court decision, striking down both elements of the D.C. gun law. In addition, the Court broke down the Second Amendment into two different views. The operative clause and the prefatory clause assisted Justice Scalia in the Courts opinion and Justice Stevens in dissent. I agree with Justice Stevens’s dissented opinion for several reasons.
Our 2nd Amendment right, coupled with the 14th Amendment framed Otis McDonald’s legal case against the city of Chicago, resulting in a judgment supporting McDonald ‘s right to purchase a gun in a city rejecting any permitting of such
Similarly to this, the Equal Protection Clause of the correction has existed used to revoke prejudicial regulations and requirements that unfairly mark particular groups of society. Despite its allure meaning, the 14th Amendment is still a quarrelsome and infrequently dissenting stipulation in American allied society. Some experts argue that the correction has happened to toughen allied experts at the cost of. state independence, while the remainder of something asserts that it has existed used to support regulations that fight scrupulous or established
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 americans don't need to “bear arms.” Some may say that many people use them to hunt but there are many other weapons you can use to hunt with as well as protecting yourself from danger. By having the second amendment, it gives criminals the right to go out and harm people, whether it be a family member, friend, someone you walk past. Statistics say that “The U.S. has an estimated 283 million guns in civilian hands.
We’re able to express our political beliefs without being fearful that we might get sent to jail. Without this amendment, we wouldn 't be able to speak up for ourselves against the government whenever we
These amendments protects citizens in many ways. They hold the society together. Amendments get proposed many times, but very few make it to the ratification process.
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.
The Second Amendment protects the right of people to keep and bear arms. This amendment was a controversial among different people in the government. It was between letting the people keep their weapons or to not let the people keep their weapons. This amendment was important to the framers of the Constitution because it provided the country with a well-regulated militia. 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.
v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago in 2008 and 2010 respectively.. Both these cases were Supreme Court cases that affirmed that the second amendment applied to individuals. This made the government unable to ban handguns as they had tried to in both Washington D.C. and Chicago. The cases were a huge victory to gun supporters. Millions of Americans are gun supporters, as and estimated 80 million Americans own a gun themselves. While the National Rifle Association, founded in 1871, the biggest pro gun group in the country, claims to be 4.5 million strong.
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
Gun control has been a controversial issue for years and numerous solutions have been proposed and enacted. The debate sparked after tragic civilian attacks, like school shootings. An example, is the tragedy in 1999 at Columbine High School. Two teens attacked the school, killing 13 people and wounding more than 20 others before killing themselves. Following this attack, numerous solutions have been argued and purposed.