About 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women). The second amendment is a part of the bill of rights. The bill of rights was established on December 15, 1791. Having been ratified by three-fourths of the states, the Bill of Rights or the first ten amendments to the Constitution was adopted. The second amendment was first proposed so the states could form army’s to destroy slave rebellions. The founding fathers were frightened by a standing army because they feared coups. Coups means a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government. The Second amendment was also created to protect people 's individual freedoms, it protects people 's individual right to own guns and other weapons. Many court cases have occurred involving the Second Amendment, one that was important was the United States vs. Miller case in 1939. This case was a challenge to the National Firearms Act. Miller 's side was arguing that the section that required registration for sawed off shotguns should be repealed. The Supreme Court ended up upholding it. The United States v. Miller case was perhaps the most cited Supreme Court case on the Second Amendment. The Court held that the obvious purpose of the …show more content…
McDonald vs. Chicago took place in 2010. It was a court case about people being able to own guns under the right of the Second Amendment. In this case the rights of the people were being taken away by the city of Chicago. The McDonald family claimed that their rights to owning a gun to help protect their family were being stolen from them. Chicago had a city ordinance that banned owning private handguns while being in or living in Chicago. In this case both sides had different ways of seeing the Second Amendment. Chicago argued about the rights states have to change firearm regulation due to what is needed locally. The McDonald family made points about the right to bear arms being a fundamental right that states should not be able to take from
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
On March 17, 2008, the District of Columbia v. Heller case was first argued in the Supreme Court. Dick Anthony Heller, a special police officer from Washington D.C., decided to take his case to court when he was told he could not posses a firearm for self defense. Heller asked the question of whether the Second Amendment does or does not protect the individual right to keep and bear a firearm for self-defense. Heller was fighting against the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, which banned all ownership of a firearm in a person’s home, with the exception of law enforcement. The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 states that all weapons must be “unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.”
Incorporation Doctrine and McDonald v. Chicago The McDonald v. Chicago case was a crucial decision by the Supreme Court regarding the 2nd Amendment and state law. This case is interesting for a couple of reasons in my opinion. Firstly, the case revolves around legislation of the 2nd Amendment which is a right held dear to myself and many other Americans. Secondly, the case gives an example of the incorporation doctrine being fully applied.
One such example is yelling “fire” in a movie theater full of people. The 2nd Amendment is the right to bear arms. It was written in mind for people to act as a militia to back the government. The reasoning was that the government could not be relied upon to give every member of a militia a firearm.
An African American retired custodian, Otis McDonald, took on the city of Chicago, which had the similar law restricting gun control policies as the Heller case. So, it comes to no one’s surprise that according to Encyclopedia Britannica, McDonald filed his lawsuit on the same day Heller’s case decision was announced to the public. Chicago was banning new registration of handguns, yet making a registration for handguns a requirement. The decision to change this regulation was made on June 28, 2010, when the court sided with McDonald 5-4. Although this case is recent it is still not the most recent major court case regarding the subject of gun control.
In 1789, Congress adopted the Bill of Rights, which included the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the bill of rights stated,” 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 the time at which the second amendment was written in the constitution, war was on the rise with Great Britain. The only way to fight was with an army. As a result, the second amendment came into play.
Starting with District of Columbia V. Heller, where a man by the name of Alan Gura was tasked with convincing the justices that the second amendment guaranteed individuals the right to own guns. The task at hand for him seemed a little too large for him due to the fact that he was not as experienced as his opponent Walter Dellinger. The National Rifle Association believed that his case would end poorly for their organization. They were also dead set on making sure the Supreme Court did not make a ruling on the meaning of the Second Amendment. So they tried with all of their power to stop Gura from pursuing the case, however Gura was determined to convince the court.
In contrast, Opponents believe that arms should have regulations because they cause violence, such as mass shootings and murder. Despite the differences on each side, the second amendment aids in the protection of all individual rights of the people to keep and bear arms for self defense when necessary. As a result, the definition of the right to bear arms has to be provided. The second amendment is quite a chicanery clause to understand, the first part of the clause stated “ a well-regulated militia.” “Well regulated…” was defined in the eighteenth century as properly but, not overly regulated (Roleff 69).
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.
In contrast, Opponents believe that arms should have regulations because they cause violence, such as mass shootings and murder. Despite the differences on each side, the second amendment aids in the protection of all individual rights of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense when necessary. As a result, the definition of the right to bear arms has to be provided. The second amendment is quite a chicanery clause to understand, the first part of the clause states “ a well-regulated militia.” “Well regulated…” was defined in the eighteenth century, as properly but not overly regulated (Roleff 69).
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.
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.
The topic of gun control and firearm regulation has been subject to heated debate for a long while. Both sides have potent arguments, however the core of this issue ultimately boils down to the constitution itself. More specifically the second amendment. This argument quickly becomes quite complicated because gun control and firearm regulation concerns not only the right of citizens, but more importantly the safety of citizens. The second amendment helps to guarantee an imperative right belonging to all citizens.
The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights is the right to bear arms, which gives American citizens a constitutional right to own and purchase guns. It states, "A well-regulated
The court summarily dismissed – with a paragraph of case citations – "the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States". According to The U.S. v Miller Case, Revisited the cases cited showed that Congress could impose taxes as it saw fit, if such taxes were meant to raise meaningful amounts of revenue, even if the States had the powers to regulate possession of or commerce in the items in question. Justice McReynolds then dealt with the remaining matter, the scope of the Second Amendment. In a single paragraph the Court narrowly defined the issue. The question turned on the nature of the short-barreled shotgun: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ’shotgun
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