Media Analysis: High Court Strikes Down Gun Ban On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that people should be able to defend themselves. Banning handguns in the nation’s capital was a ruling decided by President Bush. The major question was, is this going again the Second Amendment of the citizens? The justices decided against the ban with a 5-4 vote. Although many were upset with this decision, one stated, “I’m very happy that I am not able to defend myself and my household in my own home.” The court declared that it was still illegal to carry handguns outside and all pistols must be registered with the police. In January, Bush signed the first major gun control legislation in 14 years, stating that there should be stricter background …show more content…
Supreme Court. Other government officials in the article include the Police, Chief Justice, John Roberts and other justices such as Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer. There are also other actors such as Washing Mayor Adrian Fenty, lead plaintiff, Dick Heller, Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun violence and The National Rifle Association. The president’s main interest is to do what is best for the people of the United States, including Chief Executive, Chief Legislator and Chief Diplomat. The Supreme Court is the head of the judicial branch, established by the Constitution. Their job is to ensure the laws made are constitutional, while also having jurisdiction. Chief Justice is basically the superior of the justices, finalizing the decisions. The justice’s role is to interpret the laws passed by Congress, while serves for as long as they would like. The police’s role is to enforce the laws upon the people. Finally, The NRA just simply wants to protect the second …show more content…
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
America needs to institute, and initiate gun control laws throughout the entire nation. But not everybody who inhabits the United States believes in regulating arms. Those who are against establishing gun laws argue that gun control directly infringes upon their “right to bear arms” granted to them by the 2nd Amendment. Anti gun control supporters, such as the National Rifle Association, often claim that the act of regulating guns is a sufficient reason why such an Amendment was introduced in the constitution; to protect themselves from any and all forms of violation of civil liberties and freedom. Supporters of anti gun laws are unwilling to welcome any interpretations of the 2nd Amendment that do not match up “word for word,” as was written in the Bill of Rights.
Gun control has recently brought a massive uproar to the United States after several tragedies combined mass murder with firearms. Some argue that guns are meant to be used for our protection and it takes someone to pull the trigger while others believe that guns are intended to cause serious harm or death to the intended target. The right to own a firearm stems from the second amendment of the constitution and states that a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed. The first piece of gun control legislature that was passed in the United States was in 1911 when Sullivan’s Law passed to make buying or carrying a handgun without a permit a felony
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
Gun control is one of the most controversial issues talked about in today’s society. Some people believe that if we take guns away from civilians then there will be less violence in the county. Others think that it is our right to bear arms. President Obama is trying to pass laws to enforce stricter gun laws, because he believes that one of the biggest problems in American is that too many people are able to have guns.
December 4, 2015, in San Bernardino, CA, fourteen residents at the Inland Regional Center lost their lives due to Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik shooting many residents. Attending a holiday party at the center for thousands of residents with disabilities, Mr. Farook left the center “angry” over a dispute and came back with Ms. Malik. Armed with .223- caliber assault rifles and semiautomatic handguns, they killed 14 residents and wounded at least 17. Shootings seem to be becoming more habitual, therefore, people fear guns and want to enact gun control laws. Recent attacks from terrorist groups spark the question of who should have the right to own guns. Controversies over interpreting the Second Amendment date back to the turn of the twentieth century because so many viewpoints and regulations have accumulated; it is all in the manner of which interpretation citizens subscribe to- loose verses strict interpretation. Due to the controversies, certain gun regulations have been enacted and fears have risen because of this.
Gun control is one of the oldest laws dating back to the early 1800’s. It was approved in the southern part of the United States. During this period, the Georgia administration banned handguns, but the Supreme Court cancelled the law after some time due to the second amendment. The second amendment of the United States which says “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.” has secured certain gun rights for Americans for more than two centuries. But, over the past years, more laws have been made regarding the purchase and usage of guns.
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
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
In recent years, there have been many stories of shootings taken place across various parts of the United States, all of which bring up the highly volatile topic of gun control. Unlike many other wealthy countries, such as the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, and Australia, where gun ownership is strictly regulated, by in large-the US has very little universal gun control laws throughout the nation. This great controversy is based on the Constitutional right of 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.” Though this is a Constitutional right, unlike many other Amendments, understanding they were written in
In light of many recent mass shootings, like the shooting in San Bernardino, the topic of gun control and gun violence have been highly debated in the United States. Many state and local government have taken the responsibility into their own hands, placing bans on certain types of guns deemed most dangerous. This has sparked controversy in the U.S. because of the fact that the right to ?bear arms? is a 2nd Amendment right found in the constitution. The Supreme Court has only heard one case involving individual gun rights, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which they ruled that the state and local government could not take away the individual right to own a gun. Despite the contradicting laws barring guns in certain locations and allowing guns in
Gun Control laws are violating Constitutional rights and stopping individuals from adequately protecting themselves, resulting in tyranny. The Second Amendment guarantees “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 word infringed means actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.). A synonym of infringed is restrict, which means put a limit on; keep under control. Thus in both a literal and figurative way, gun control is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court ruled that states and the national government can’t deny people's constitutional rights.
v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago highlight the importance of preserving our individual rights and liberties to bear arms. Justice Alito’s interpretation and reasoning behind his ruling holds strong, against other arguments. His reasoning balances the idea that while the Second Amendment provides us with a fundamental right, it is not unlimited, just like the Freedom of Speech and Press. The holdings in earlier Supreme Court cases like United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois and U.S. v. Miller, all highlight different parts of the Second Amendment, but place an incorrect emphasis on the singular meaning of the militia. As Justice Alito, in his majority opinion in D.C. v. Heller, that the history and context of the Second Amendment illuminates the idea that the argument was not over whether it was desirable but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution. While there are still some issues seen ambiguously through the Court’s decisions, it is evident that from their holdings that some standard of review was used. Recent Court holdings stand by the acceptance and relevance of the Second Amendment’s fundamental right to bear
The ongoing debate about gun control i largely intertwines with the 2nd Amendment. In 1791, our founding fathers ratified the 2nd amendment to the constitution, allowing the “right to bear arms”. As law-abiding citizens, we should exercise our right to carry a gun responsibly. A large portion of the American population feels that any form of gun control enactment would infringe on their rights as a gun holder and eventually eliminate their privilege to possess a firearm. Which could possibly lead to challenging other civil liberties. However, due to the carnage left from mass killings, mentally disturbed attacks, assault weapons, and terrorist, stricter
America has always prided itself on being the land of the free. Our national Constitution and Bill of Rights have ensured that the people of America maintain their basic rights. Nevertheless, many of the rights guaranteed in these historic documents are often the subject of heated debate. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against self-incrimination, the First Amendment’s protection of speech and petitioning activity, all of these issues have been subject to contentious arguments in courts of law and the courts of public opinion. Of late, however, the most lengthy, argumentative and noisy debates have focused on gun control. Some people think that
Gun control has a history dating back to 1791, when the Second Amendment of the Constitution was ratified. However, more recently, the debate over gun control has escalated into a much more public issue to which many citizens can relate. After all, stories about incidents involving guns appear frequently today in newspapers and on television or the radio. One could say that the debate started with the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which banned ownership of guns by certain groups of people and regulated the sale of guns. Since then, two main groups have gradually appeared: people who oppose strict federal