Purpose Of A Shall-Issue Law

Imagine a situation where a big event was taken place and among the many people a mass shooting breaks out killing hundreds until the police shown up 12 minutes later. Concealed carry laws save lives. To start off, it is an Americans constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense. Second, concealed carry is effective and proven to keep civilians safer. “In truth, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” (Chong 27).

The Second Amendment is important because it provides self defense to American citizens. In some states, like Arizona, you can carry a gun around without a permit, if you’re an adult. But if someone wants to have his or hers gun concealed, then they are required to have a permit.”Forty-two states generally require a state-issued permit in order to carry concealed weapons in public (“CCW” permit).” (Hardy, States That Allow Concealed Carry). The 8 other states that allow concealed carry without a permit are Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. But in some form, 7 out of the 8

​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

The Supreme Court ruled on June 28th that the 2nd Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms applies on state and city levels. The 5-4 decision along ideological lines echoed 2008's decision to strike down DC's handgun ban, citing the 14th Amendment as a major factor in the decision to extend the federal right to own a hand gun for personal protection down to local levels. Though it officially returned McDonald v. City of Chicago to the lower courts for a decision, it is expected that Chicago's 28 year old handgun ban will be overturned, and that legislation against handgun restrictions in other states will be legally challenged for years to come.

However, in recent times, it has become more apparent that individual rights of gun owners has become an increasingly problematic issue in terms of redefining the terms of the Second Amendment through the individual perspective. the Supreme Court has reversed this decision to make more individual concession for gun owners outside of well-regulated state militias. More so, gun lobby groups, such as The National Rifle Association, have funded political groups in the U.S. government to reverse the underlying military aspects of the Second Amendment in terms of gun ownership. This is one way in which legal decision, such as those of Supreme Court, have come to realize the more individual aspects of gun ownership through a gun rights perspective in recent years. The District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) decision is one example of the growing reversal of Constitutional law that extends gun rights outside of domestic military

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

District of Columbia v. Heller is a Supreme Court case that was heard in 2008 by the court. The respondent was a D. C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. The respondent, Heller, filed a lawsuit to challenge District of Columbia handgun laws that prohibited the carrying of handguns without a license and requirements that licensed firearms kept in homes must be kept nonfunctional.

Heller there was another Supreme Court case called McDonald V. Chicago. In this case the U.S supreme court had to rule on if in fact the Second Amendment right which declares,” 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”, applies to the states of the U.S. In the city of Chicago prohibited a person from possessing any kind of fire arm unless the person had a “legal” registration for the gun. The clause of this rule that made it questionable to the person’s legal rights is that the law made it so that registrations of most handguns were prohibited. This therefore making it illegal to own many hand guns, violating a person’s right to bear arms yet again. A group of people took this to court claiming that the ban on hand guns made it so that they were exposed to criminals therefore they couldn’t protect them self. The group filed a claim that there second and fourteenth amendment rights were being violated. Chicago stated that Heller, the case in 2008 stated above, did not say that the ruling thet had made applied to any state. Rose states that in the court had to rule on “whether the right to bear arms was a fundamental right protected by the constitution and therefore applicable to the

Only two cases in the last sixty-five years have been tried by the Supreme Court regarding gun regulations and the right to keep and bear arms. Both of these cases have ended similarly, 5-4 votes in favor gun rights activists. Justices who dissented wrote that owning a firearm for personal use was not a "liberty" interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Other Justices wrote that there is nothing in the Second Amendment's "text, history, or underlying rationale" that characterizes it as a "fundamental right" warranting incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment (Mcdonald v. Chicago Oyez.com). Much of the debate in these cases is whether owning a firearm for personal use is a “fundamental right” granted

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” A gun license grants a user the right to own and use a firearm. Gun-right supporters strongly oppose federally mandated licensing or registration. They see both as dangerous steps toward revoking Second Amendment rights. They say that with mandated licensing or registration, a right guaranteed by the Constitution becomes a privilege granted by the government (Doeden). The topic of gun control/rights in the United States has a long history, which some see as unconstitutional, and could easily be relaxed by requiring background checks.

D.C. V. Heller (2008) is a Supreme Court case over the second amendment. Heller was charged with possession of firearm in his home. This was an issue due to the fact that Heller lived in the District of Columbia which had a ban on handguns. When brought to the Supreme Court it was ruled five to four in favor of Heller (“Bill of Rights Institute”).

District of Columbia was not the only court case about the Second Amendment. In the McDonald v. City of Chicago case Otis McDonald called into question the City of Chicago’s handgun ban. The Supreme Court voiced that the District of Columbia ban on handguns violated the Second Amendment. The Court responded back mentioning that the law was enacted under the authority of the federal government and this was the Second Amendment was applicable. McDonald argued that the Second Amendment should not only apply to the federal government but to the states also. The district court dismissed the suits. “In conclusion, the Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states”

The District of Columbia is the central hub of the United States government. It is a place where the nations top elected officials work daily, but it is also a proving ground for laws that could be deemed unconstitutional, such as the restriction of concealed carry permits to those residents, who “demonstrate a “good reason to fear injury.” There was a ban on all guns within the District of Columbia until 2008, when the Supreme Court filed its opinion in the case of District of Columbia versus Heller. The battle over gun rights is one that has only been inflamed in recent years as more media attention is devoted to firearm related incidents. The concealed carry laws within the District of Columbia are some of the strictest in the United States having only approved eighty-eight people for permits while declining the applications of over three-hundred. On September 20th, oral arguments will be made in front of a panel comprised of three judges. In court filings the gun rights activists are citing the fact that the District’s requirement to show extraordinary threat is unconstitutional.

Imagine this, you reside in the year two-thousand and eight. You live in southeast D.C. near Kentucky Courts, you have since nineteen-seventy. Your job must be as a licensed special police officer for the District of Columbia and your job requires you to carry a gun on you in all federal office buildings. Even though, you get to hold a gun on the job you seem to not be allowed to even have one in your own home because of the gun ban of in District of Columbia. The D.C. v Heller established the right to own a gun, protect yourself from harm, and carry

The distinction between judicial activism and judicial restraint may seem very prominent and clear cut now, yet the 2010 McDonald v. the city of Chicago case arguably uses both approaches. On June 28th, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled (5-4), that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” applies to state and local government as well as to the federal government (BRITTANICA). The suit was filed to challenge the provisions of a 1982 Chicago law that generally banned the new registration of handguns and made registration a prerequisite to owning a firearm. This case is the perfect example to showcase how judicial restraint and activism both act on the outcome of a case.