Al. V. Heller

People believed that “the right to bear arms is the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanction of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression”. On the opposite hand, many states at the time believed that to give the people the right to own a gun was unconstitutional because it could be a threat for the state government when everyone was allowed to own guns. Majority of states in America did not want to add the right to bear arms into their state constitution, because there was not a single legal model emerged on how to protect them in the first constitutions drafted by our Founding Fathers. The debate between gun control and non-gun control over the right to bear arms alarmed America. The gun control claimed that the right to bear arms is the basic right that people should have in order for American citizens to defense themselves and for their state.; They believed that the laws prohibiting individuals from carrying firearms only work for the benefit of criminals. On the opposite hand, anti-gun controllers believed that those gun owners should be led by gentlemen of the first fortune and character, because the society without the guidance of gentlemen, those gun controllers’ population might easily become a mob and not a well-regulated militia. After reviewing many opinions from both sides as well as the benefits and effectiveness of the rights, the convention agreed and

In this case, Dick Heller, a police officer, authorized to carry a handgun while on duty wanted a handgun to own and keep at his home. The District of Columbia refused so Dick Heller filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia, which eventually also went to the Supreme Court. In June 2008, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, determined the provisions of the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 as unconstitutional. They stated that “handguns or arms for the purpose of self-defense do not have to be trigger locked”.

The first speaker, Dr. Khal Schneider, addresses the words behind the 2nd amendment. He provides us with a historical background around the formation of the amendment and further describes the works that are within this amendment. He highlights words such as “Militia”, “necessary”, “arms”, and “infringed”. He describes how these words can be interpreted differently, thus making it hard to actually interpret the amendment for what it actually means. For instance, he draws attention to the word “arms” and describes the evolution. He illustrates that his amendment must be looked at in respects to the century it was written in. He then describes the difference between “arms’ within both centuries. He draws attention to the increase

​In his book ‘Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America,’ Wrinkler tried to present an unbiased view towards the second amendment in the light of historical events and landmark cases that has tried to challenge or obtain the court’s interpretation. One of such cases is the ‘District of Columbia v. Heller’ case, which was argued and decided in 2008 (Supreme Court of the United States). For several instances, the provision in the Second Amendment that pertains to the right of an individual to bear arms has been contested. In fact, the clause, which states that “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”, is perhaps the most misconstrued clause in the American constitution (Supreme Court of the United States). Adding to the significance of this highly debatable clause is the fact that a flurry of gun related incidences has happened in the United States in the past that has taken many lives including that of children. Among the most significant authors that has attempted to answer the question or at least laid out the possibilities regarding the second amendment is Adam Wrinkler. In light of Winkler’s arguments as well as with other sources, this paper will examine the historical

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, Second Amendment of the Declaration of Independence. While some people see this Amendment as a right to have guns, others think that this right is limited by the “a well-regulated militia” part of the Amendment. The controversial dispute between opponents and supporters of gun rights seems to be a non-ending situation, both sides of the political spectrum are trying to influence public opinion through media campaigns. The right of the people to own arms has been discussed, particularly by the public more than by the tribunal. The Supreme Court, in June 2008, by a vote of 5–4, decided that Americans

One of the most controversial issues in our society today is the topic of private gun ownership and gun control laws. This controversy has arisen mostly due to the different ways that the second constitutional amendment is interpreted. The amendment states that "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" (Lott, 2000). On one side of the issue, there are those that believe that the amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess and carry a wide variety of firearms. On the other side are those that contend that the amendment was only meant to guarantee to States the right to operate militias.

The opposite side of this debate consists of those who claim that the amendment guarantees some sort of individual right to arms. This view comes from the literal wording of the Second Amendment, which states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Along with this argument, the NRA and other groups in opposition of gun control argue that the first, fourth, ninth, and tenth amendments are all constructed to refer to the citizens as individuals and not as a collective state. These gun advocates feel that if one is to give a rational interpretation of the collective view to the constitution, then one would have to assume that the Framers referred to the individuals in the first, fourth, and ninth amendments; to the states in the second amendment, and then separated the states and the people in the tenth amendment, although they feel that this was inconsistent with the wording of the second amendment (5).

District of Columbia v. Heller is a court case that occurred through the years of 2007 through 2008. The reason of the occurrence of this court case is because Dick Anthony Heller was a special police officer in D.C.. He was authorized to carry a handgun on duty but not off duty because of D.C.’s policy on firearms. D.C. made it illegal to carry unregistered firearms and prohibited the registration of handguns. However the Chief of Police could issue a one year license to carry a handgun.

The two primary positions presented on this issue are generally referred to as the “individual rights” and “states’ rights” positions (“Second”). The “individual rights” position posits that the amendment was written to secure private citizens’ personal right to own firearms as they see fit. This conclusion is generally concluded by looking at the rest of the Bill of Rights as well as many personal writings of the framers of the Constitution.

The Second Amendment to the U.S Constitution is fiercely debated and interpreted differently among American citizens and argued with between the Legislative and Judicial branches of our government. “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,” (Brooks). Because of the Second Amendment, citizens have the right to possess firearms and use them for protection. When researching the origin of the Second Amendment, its modern applications, and its relevance in today’s society, one can determine the Second Amendment’s current implications on today’s society.

People misuse or overuse the right to bear arms. Society believes since it is written in the constitution, we are able to own a gun for individual self defense or other purposes. Notably, the “right of self-defense is described by St. George Tucker as the first law of nature.”” In other cases, people believe it should not be in the constitution because it can be dangerous. However, another theory is that the constitutions defining statement is the people are to protect our democratic values. Uphold our traditional principles by defending against the foreign threats or domestic tyranny. With all of these concluding solutions to the nations debate over the right to bear arms, it is no wonder the U.S. has not come to a final decision. America, of course, will most likely never come to an agreement. Despite the argument, the second amendment is shaped to benefit the

In 2008, the District of Columbia v. Heller case was debated by the Supreme Court. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the District of Columbia’s prohibition of registering handguns and keeping them assembled in the house did, in fact, violate the Second Amendment. In the opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia also stated that the right to bear arms does not only apply to those in the

District of Columbia v Heller Case name: District of Columbia v Heller Case number: 554 US. 570 The Facts: The case, DC V Heller, was heard out in 2008 by the supreme court. This case originally started by a man known as Heller who wanted to legally own a working firearm at home for self defense purposes. He applied for a handgun, but his application was denied (LII).

The Supreme Court decided that it was unconstitutional that the District of Columbia denied Heller his right to get a permit to own a self-defense weapon in his home. They told the D.C (District of Columbia) that since they were not an official state they did not have the right to say that Heller could not have the permit anyways. Heller won the case and was allowed to get his permit. “While D.C isn’t a home for gun owners things have improved in the past few years. After losing to Heller, D.C abandon its attempt to outlaw carrying handguns, although people within the city still have to register all firearms (Woods, 60).”

Drawing influence from Levinson (1989) once again, I would like to argue that there is not or should not be an understanding that the Second Amendment is of greater importance and a higher degree of static understanding than other aspects of the Constitution. Levinson critiques this condition of the American population as follows; “If one does accept the plausibility of any of the arguments on behalf of a strong reading of the Second Amendment, but, nevertheless, rejects them in the name of social prudence and the present-day consequences produced by finicky adherence to earlier understandings, why do we not apply such consequentialist criteria to each and every part of the Bill of Rights” (p. 657). The Second Amendment, of course, is an important piece of the American Constitution. However, it is not or should not be the case that this particular amendment is so hotly contested while other similarly important articles go unquestioned. There seems to be an absolute political influence in the debate of this topic which is simply unfair to the amendment and Americans. While this issue does not hit directly on the constitutionality of gun possession, it does bring to light one point of consideration when trying to determine the legality of this seemingly exclusively American desire.