District Of Columbia V. Heller Case Analysis

The following critical analysis of the Essay, “The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms” by Lee Professor of Law at William and Mary Law School, William Van Alstyne, is intended to highlight a few of the different short-comings and argumentative fallacies presented by even the most legally astute individuals who oppose forms of gun control. While the author does present a multi-facet and well-orchestrated presentation of fact and principle, there are two essential claims being asserted on his part. The author’s intent is to demonstrate the importance of gun right protection and to justify the NRA’s practices in the name of doing so. In my dissection of the essay, I intend to demonstrate the argumentative fallacies and examine the ways in which the NRA is generally harmful to the progression of gun control reform, and therefore public safety in the United

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."

Vote: 7/2. Justia Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the court. In which Rehnquist, C.J joined and White, Blackmum, O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter Joined. Steven J. filed an opinion in which Marshal J. joined.

​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

Throughout the years there has been an ongoing debate over the Second Amendment and how it should be interpreted. The issue that is being debated is whether our government has the right to regulate guns. The answer of who has which rights lies within how one interprets the Second Amendment. With this being the case, one must also think about what circumstances the Framers were under when this Amendment was written. There are two major sides to this debate, one being the collective side, which feels that the right was given for collective purposes only. This side is in favor of having stricter gun control laws, as they feel that by having stricter laws the number of crimes that are being

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.

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

V. United States, unanimously ruled the NRA unconstitutional. In fact, 11 out of 16 of the

The Supreme Court agreed by a 5-4 vote. The majority and minority had different views

Casey is a divided judgement because none of the Justices' opinions were joined by a majority of Justices. However, the plurality decision, which was written by Justices Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy, is accepted a the lead opinion because each of its parts were agreed with by at least two other Justices', although different ones for each part. The plurality opinion overturned the strict trimester formula previously used in Roe vs. Wade which then made it a shorter time period before the State's interest in the fetus outweighed the woman's interest to abort. The plurality opinion also got rid of the husband notification requirement, saying that it would worsen situations of spousal abuse because it would give husbands too much power over their wives.

For quite some time now, there has been big controversy about whether we should have the right to bear arms and how we should be able to obtain weapons / how we should be with them (gun control). The 2nd Amendment ties into gun control and stirs up a lot of debate. Some people believe it’s a danger to society, and some people believe that taking away guns would be taking away our freedom in a way. If we had stricter gun laws, people say there would be less tragedies and mass-shootings. But on the other hand, it’s said that we need guns to defend ourselves maybe in times like this. Although it’s in the Constitution some people just don’t agree and say that the 2nd amendment can be interpreted different ways. There is serious disagreement about whether guns protect liberty or threaten it (Waters, Timothy William, 2017).

Whether you gather your information from the newspaper, radio, or a website, you have certainly been exposed to one of the most controversial, current debates. It seems that the media refuses to stop talking about this topic. In fact, as soon as the press over one event disappears another event seems to revive the debate. Some citizens say that we need more restrictive gun laws. Meanwhile, other Americans say that more guns are what is necessary. It’s impossible to know what the right answer is. However, we can investigate surrounding factors of the matter in order to gain a clearer understanding of the controversy. That being said, I will explain

The traditional norm of protecting the second amendment of the Constitution is an issue in contemporary culture because of the vast growth of a more liberal stance on guns. Many Americans oppose the idea that the second amendment should be protected at all costs, as well as that no regulations should take place. Because our country lacks strict regulations on the buying of dangerous weapons, countless lives are lost each month. Our country is clinging to the protection of an outdated amendment that is in turn, hurting the American people. This issue is a priority for a majority of citizens because of how it occurs within our own country. Countless people and their families have been victims of gun violence, which in turn results in the desire

Gun control is a very controversial topic. There is a large amount of supporters on each side of the argument. One side claims that gun control will stop events such as school shootings. The other side claims that it is a right that cannot be taken away from the constitution. Both sides have supporters that are very involved and emotional about their views. With both sides being heavily argued, it makes gun control one of the most debated topics in courts today.

Gun control infringes on the Second Amendment right of the American people.  The Second Amendment 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" (Adams).  In researching gun control, the government is not sure which way to enforce the law because they can not determine the fair interpretation of the amendment.  Even though gun control is suppose to reduce fire arm related crimes, it only makes it harder for law abiding citizens, or officers of the law to attain guns.  According to Hogberg there was a specific case of Heller vs. Washington D.C. that made a huge impact.  Dick Heller was asked to defend the people of D.C. against the government to gain the rights to own a hand gun.  The right of owning a hand gun in Washington D.C. was revoked in the early 1970's, but in 1976 an incident of a shooting changed