Keep And Bear Arms

Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm to use for lawful purposes, such as defending oneself within their home/property. The court case ruled that the Amendment was not connected to service in a militia (Constitution). Handgun possession is banned under District of Columbia law. This law prohibits the registration of handguns and makes it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm; additionally, all lawfully owned firearms must be kept unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock unless they are being used for lawful recreational activities or located in a place of business.

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 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”.1 It is important to understand that the Second Amendment was created in order to allow the American people to form militias in response to a tyrannical government attempting to suppress the American way of life. In order for Americans to form militias, they must uphold their freedom to bear arms as a

As a constitutional researcher, I’ve been assigned to take a closer look at the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. The Second Constitution reads “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the societies of a free state, the right of people to keep and to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Specifically, I am reviewing the portion of the amendment that speaks to the right to bear arms. I believe there are several constitutional issues with this part of the amendment that may not apply to today’s world.

     This timeless phrase, the Second Amendment of the United States’ Constitution, is an enduring example of the principles and ideals that our country was founded on. With this statement, the founders of this country explicitly and perpetually guaranteed the American individual the right to keep and bear arms. An incomparably crucial element of this country‘s origins, the Second Amendment and the rights it guarantees have proved vital to the growth and success of our nation.

​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

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).

The second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of people to bear arms and was adopted in 1791. It guarantees all Americans "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is more described as supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. Former Chief Justice of the United States, Warren E. Burger writes an essay regarding “The Right To Bear Arms,” that originally appeared in the Parade Magazine in the 1990’s that questions if “The Right To Bear Arms,” is an outdated idea. Burger argument is that the gun control would lower if handguns were lowered. He also talks about the”Militias,” which is an army that protects the security of the state. Our “State Militias,” in our time, serves as a huge national defense.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution gave United States citizens the right to bear arms. Although, the Second Amendment stated: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. However, the framers could not foresee the type of violence we have in our cities today. Innocent citizens have and are being brutally killed due to this amendment. Stricter gun control laws must be enacted to receive these types of weapons.

This topic has been debated in “town-hall” debates, local municipalities, and even as far up as the Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court refused to rule one way or another for a long period of time. Eventually in 2008, the court decided to make a landmark decision on a case that was referred to it through the normal channel of appeals. On March 18, 2008, the Supreme Court heard arguments for the case of “DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)” (Court, 2008). The case centered around Dick Heller, a DC Special Police Officer. Heller had wanted to own and register a handgun at his residence for personal protection, and sought to obtain a license from the District of Columbia, where he resides. At the time, “The District of Columbia generally prohibited the possession of handguns. It was a crime to carry an unregistered firearm, and the registration of handguns was prohibited. See D. C. Code §§7–2501.01(12), 7–2502.01(a), 7–2502.02(a)(4) (2001). Wholly apart from that prohibition, no person may carry a handgun without a license, but the chief of police may issue licenses for 1-year periods. See §§22–4504(a), 22–4506. District of Columbia law also requires residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms, such as registered long guns, “unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device” unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities. See §7–2507.02” (States, 1789).

Additionally, the argument relied on the notion of “original intent,” the idea that the framers intended a right for individuals to bear arms under the Constitution. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion of the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision in favor of Heller. Scalia rejected the idea that the Second Amendment was limited exclusively to militia service, recognizing both a right to possess firearms and a right to use them for lawful purposes such as self-defense. Scalia went on to note that several forms of gun regulation are acceptable under the Second Amendment. Some examples Scalia noted include concealed weapons bans, prohibitions on firearm possession by felons or the mentally ill, prohibitions on firearm possession in places such as schools and government buildings as well as regulations on the sale of firearms.

The Second Amendment of the United States 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.” The constitution is clearly saying all citizens have the right to be able to own and carry a weapon or firearm. On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves (Cornell 1). This is showing how our founding fathers supported the right to bear arms.

As president’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of justice declared in 1967,” The U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently took this Amendment only as a prohibition counter to Federal interfering with state soldiers and not as a promise of an individual’s right to keep or carry firearms.” Believing that the amendment does not authorize an individual’s right to keep and bear arms is wrong. The right to bear arms is an individual right. Blackstone’s Commentaries spoke specifically of the “ “right to have arms.” An individual allow to have arms without being militia.

The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to hear the case, under the appellate jurisdiction. Once the legal briefs were submitted, the “Rule of Four” is required, meaning that four of the nine justices would like to hear the case. After the four justices agree, the case is determined justiciable. The Supreme Court then receives all documents from the lower courts, reviewing the lower federal court’s decision. After discussion, justices Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy, were against the ban, while Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter ruled for. Once the 5-4 decision was made, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion, which explains the final judgment, stating that “the majority was sympathetic to Washington’s problems with guns and crime but banning handguns was not a solution”. In 1791, The Bill of Rights was written containing the second amendment, stating” 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”. Since passed, the Courts have avoided the question whether gun ownership is an individual right. Although most justices felt okay about the agreement, Breyer had a concern that “the majority would jeopardize the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the nation”, meaning that he had a dissenting