Controversy: The Right To Bear Arms

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership. The Second Amendment of the US 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." Gun ownership is an American tradition older than the country itself and is protected by the Second Amendment; more gun control laws would infringe upon the right to bear arms. Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB, in the June 26, 2008 District of Columbia et al. v. Heller US Supreme Court majority opinion syllabus stated, "The Second Amendment protects 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." The McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) ruling also stated that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights."

The U.S constitution is in place to protect citizens rights from the government. It plays as a check in balance in powers amongst the most powerful. But why is that even with the constitution in place to protect us, we find certain discrepancies which result in Supreme Court cases or Landmark cases. One of the most disputable amendments in our constituting governmental platform is, to much surprise, the 2nd amendment. In my opinion, its due to its broadness in explanation. According to constitutioncenter, the 2nd amendment Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791, and its states as followed, “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 you can see, its brief in what its prerogative is, but not specific on situational based questions. We as humans want to know the “what ifs” in any situation especially when something isn’t addressed. This results in cases that end up in the Supreme court. One of the most notable cases regarding the 2nd amendment, was District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

​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

Heller, the court ruled that “the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing individual right to keep and bear arms…including, ‘the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation’” (National Rifle Association, 2011 par 4). Although the Constitution gives individuals the right to bear arms, it does not exclude “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places…or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms,” (Romano & Wingert, 2011 par 13). In recent years here has been much discussion among the nation’s lawmakers and their constituents as to whether or not the Second Amendment is still constitutional; the question is whether or not the Second Amendment should be revised, to prohibit the sale of firearms to those who do not meet certain conditions and qualifications, or even removed from the constitution. According to a national survey of 1,005 high school students, conducted by Vittes, Sorrenson and Gilbert, “63.7 percent of high school students believe that regulating the sale of guns does not violate the constitution” (2003, pg 12). In the same survey, 64.6 percent responded that they would support stricter laws addressing the sale of firearms, and 82.2 percent of those surveyed, believe that the government should make and enforce laws making it more difficult for

A paltry twenty-seven words, present in the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, have been a major focal point of the seemingly endless debate over whether, and for what purposes, US citizens have a right to own firearms. Positions vary wildly from those that hold these words to mean citizens have the right to violent revolt to those that believe they only allow the United States Armed Forces to exist, as well as a multitude of positions in between.

The Second Amendment 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”. The way the Supreme Court interprets this amendment changes constantly because not even the Supreme Court fully understands the limits and rights given to citizens. Some argue that this amendment protects our right to own a gun, but is not very clear. Over the years the second amendment has become a huge debate over gun rights and gun control. This is a cause of all the gun violence this country has been facing for many years and they need a way to help prevent gun violence or even suppress the amount of deaths faced by these tragedies. One of the ways this

The Court sees the Second Amendment as protecting a right of individuals to possess firearms (505,Chemerinsky). With the Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 changed the constitutional landscape and cemented a new basis for applying the Bill of Rights to the states. By not fully incorporating the Bill of Rights this meant justices had to create their own standards for what process is due under the Fourteenth Amendment (338,O’Brien). This is very important because this deviated from methods of interpreting the Constitution and to establish their own thoughts instead of holding up a strict constructionist view of the these incorporated laws.

The recent decision in McDonald v. Chicago says that “the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.” (slip op., 44) The result of this decision is that Chicago residents are recognized as fully within their rights to keep guns for home defense, and laws that are essentially a ban in their effect are actually unconstitutional.

In the article, the author talks about how the court system is acting unconstitutionally on Second Amendment to the Constitution. The second amendment grants the rights of all citizens to form an independent "militia" and bear "war weapons" which "shall

They argued that the Second Amendment was designed to allow people to protect themselves. Because handguns are commonly used for protection, it was wrong for the District of Columbia to ban them. In addition, because the home is where protection is usually needed, the District of Columbia was wrong in requiring firearms to be kept unloaded in households. The majority also decided that because the term “militia” applied to all men who were capable of serving when the Amendment was written, the Amendment now applies to all men whether they serve or not.

He said that the second amendment does not create an unlimited right to possess guns for self defense purposes. (Oyez). The site, Oyez said: “Justice Stevens also notes that “the people” does not enlarge the protected group beyond the context of service in a state-regulated militia. This reading is in line with legal writing of the time that contextualizes the Amendment in relation to state militias and post-enactment legislative history (Oyez).” The following Justices also agreed with the Dissenting Opinion: Stevens, Stouter, Ginsburg, Breyer.

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia held “that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban … violated that right.”1 The majority opinion addressed that the dissenting opinion contained a different interpretation of the Amendment. The “dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service.” 2 Justice Scalia explained that the respondent believed that the Second Amendment protected an individual right unconnected with militia service, and that it protects the right to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense.

As we look at our history we can see that every amendment to the constitution has been challenged in court at one time or another. As long as man or woman has free will and different interpretations of things legal battles will continue. I chose the district of Columbia v Heller I chose this because the Second Amendment is one that I follow closely. The District of Columbia and the Washington DC metropolitan police department with the government entities involved in the case. The petitioner was the district of Columbia and the respondent was Dick Anthony Heller. The District of Columbia and acted a law that made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm and also prohibited the registration of handguns virtually making it impossible for anyone

The Supreme Court case McDonald vs Chicago was about the Second Amendment. Specifically, Chicago and Oak Park’s ban on handguns. Several lawsuits were filed against them after the Supreme Court shared their opinions in the District of Columbia v. Heller. The court voiced that the ban was in violation of the Second Amendment. Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment made the Second Amendment applicable to all the states in regards of self-defense. This case is relevant to the issue of federalism because the Second Amendment gives rights to the people in order to defend themselves. Therefore, offering a balance of power between People, the Federal government, and the State government.

The Second amendment allows citizens to bear arms. The Second amendment means that citizens are allowed to bear arms for house protection. Citizens are protected from jail fines, if the gun is a military type gun used for protection. The government must protect the citizens from any unreasonable gun laws and disarming. One court case involving the Second amendment was the United States vs. Miller on May 15th, 1939. Jack Miller and Frank Layton carried sawed off shotguns across state lines. Both were arrested and went into trial with the Supreme court. They won the court case at first, but the the National Firearms Act only allowed shotguns with an eighteen inch barrel to be owned. They both did not have a registering stamp to show that they paid for the tax. The ruling did not take place because Jack Miller had died. The Supreme court was sent to a lower level court to be dealt with. The case helped people remember about the National Firearms Act requiring all firearms needing the register stamp. Another court case with the second amendment is District of Columbia vs. Heller in 2008. Heller was a special policemen who applied to register his pistol, but the District denied him. He enjoined the city to enforcing of the license and registration. The ruling was five to four, because the law interfered with the governments duty to protect citizens from