Senate Bill 656

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).

To begin, Missouri is one of the worst states for gun control laws. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence gave Missouri an F for gun violence, and out of all the states“Missouri ranked 39th out of 50 – having enacted few gun violence prevention laws.” (“Missouri State Law Summary.”) The thing is, that Missouri HAS disallowed the permit to purchase, the registration, and the licensing to owners of all guns. The problem is, is that even though you are not allowed to carry a rifle or shotgun around, you can carry a handgun around, which is what has

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

Expanding upon the wording in the 2nd Amendment, anti-gun control proponents argue that the definition of “militia” is not limited to an armed force under direct control of the state or federal government. Charles Heston, president of the NRA, cites US Code Title 10, Section 311, stating that the recognized legal definition of militia is that “the ‘militia’ is made up of two complementary bodies: the ‘organized militia,’ which is the National Guard; and the ‘unorganized militia,’ which is every male citizen between ages 17 and 45” (Heston). Under this expanded definition of militia, every legal male of the accepted age has the right to bear arms under United States law. Some gun rights advocates further expand this right to be

The argument that has lasted for centuries begins with the first part “A well regulated militia”. Over the years, many of the nation’s supreme courts have ruled in a lot of different ways. The definition of a well regulated militia means to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections

Missouri House Bill 1468, removes the need for an individual to have a permit for a conceal-and-carry firearm. This bill was sponsored by Eric Burlison, a Republican, who is the current representative for District 133 in the Missouri House of Representatives. Before this bill, any resident of Missouri who is at least 19 years old, or any military member who is at least 18 years old, must apply for a permit that costs $100 as well as complete an eight-hour long firearms safety course (Bliss). Even with the addition of this bill, it is still forbidden to carry a firearm in the following places: schools, governmental buildings, private property that restricts firearms, and many other places. It also is illegal for domestic violence offenders

The word "militia" as used in the original Amendment to the Constitution is defined as the war "arms" individuals are granted the right to bear, but the court system denies that and by so many cases, they put so much harder and tougher restrictions on it [1]. What I think is the court is afraid of the secret militias overthrowing the government. It may also be a security issue, but let's keep that in mind that in a society where everybody is armed, there are fewer crimes happened than in a society with no guns allowed. The right to bear military arms SHOULD be granted back to individuals but with enough teachings about them. The right is already given to people in the constitution, but there is always something going on in the background that is not told to people. Let's be honest. Every government on the Earth is afraid of being overthrown by secret militias with military weapons(from the dictator government of North Korea to the Conservative government of the US). They can not let people use military arms because united militias can plan secretly and work to overthrow the government. The government of the US has done so many bad things to

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of the United States of America is very similar to the current Bill C-51 and they can be compared, as firstly it fails to define “terrorist activity”, secondly it targets immigrants and lastly, the INA has been amended various times. Under the INA, people who are considered to be a part of illegal and aggressive acts are prohibited to enter the United States of America. " The ground for inadmissibility include but are not limited to:(1) the [individual] has “engaged in terrorist activity”; (2) an immigration officer has “reasonable grounds to believe” the [individual] engaged in or is likely to engage in terrorist activity; (3) the [individual] has incited terrorist activity under circumstances indicating an intent to cause death or serious bodily harm; (4) the [individual] is a representative of a Tier I terrorist organization;

The U.S. House of Representative Bill 610 is sponsored by Representative Steve King and the House committee is Education and the Workforce. This bill was put into place for “distributing Federal funds for elementary and secondary education in the form of vouchers for eligible students and to repeal a certain rule relating to nutrition standards in schools” (Smith.) The significance behind putting this bill into place is to provide a “better” way of education an to get rid of the “waste” we “currently” have in our eduational system. The U.S. House of Representatives should not pass Bill 610 because it detroys many basic American rights set in the Constitution, cuts all “special” classes and other educational funding, and cuts free/reduced lunches

In “Missouri: The Shoot-Me State,” The Editorial Board of The New York Times condemns the Missouri Legislature’s enactment of a law that essentially allows concealed weapons to be carried in public. I agree with this condemnation, as firearms should not be carried around in public like it is some everyday tool. It goes without saying, but guns are capable of taking lives. I do not understand how it is logically and morally sound to allow individuals to have such dangerous weapons at their immediate disposal. The editorial even cites that “the law will let citizens carry concealed weapons in public without a state gun permit, criminal background check or firearms training.” This law is especially egregious as it allows criminals to have more

The Senate Bill 149 (SB 149) signed by Greg Abbot is about relating to alternative methods for satisfying certain public high school graduation requirements, including the use of individual graduation committees. This bill gives students a better chance at graduating, although it may or not be continued results of this bill will have to be processed first. I chose this bill because I believed that it would be well known also, because it is important to school life which has taken a big turn in recent years. Education has taken a decline in funding so I think this law may benefit the sudden drop in funding or perhaps is something the government hopes to be used as an olive branch due to withdrawal of funding.

Another point is the constitutional right of a self regulated militia, which must be protected no matter what. Access to a state militia is a specific right protected by the United States Constitution, within the second amendment. The Bill of Rights states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”, which implies that throughout the sovereign states, a self enforced military is a liberty available to all who desire to take advantage of their rights. Those who aim to protect their fellow citizens should have the ability to do so: “They claim that the amendment protects the general public, who were viewed as part of the general militia, as distinguished from the “select militia” controlled by the state.”(Gun

Biblical guidelines: The Bible supports learning and education in scriptures such as Proverbs 1:5, Proverbs 8:15, Proverbs 9:9. The Biblical principle of covenant /federalism can be applied to the biblical guidelines because it requires help from a sphere sovereignty to make the reality of the bill be implemented. It takes involvement

The Legal Action Project determined that the main purpose of writing the Second Amendment was to make sure that the federal government would not be able to disarm the militia. Also during the late eighteenth century colonists and even the Founding Fathers wanted reassurance that in case of a ‘standing army’ there would be a militia ready for a counterattack. The author, James Madison, obviously guarantees that the right to bear arms is a collective right of all the people not just the government’s army (Dolan Jr. 71). However many argue that the second amendment only refers to our country’s organized army, not the whole population. Their reason for this is that no country should put their lives in the hands of mere civilians. Alexander Hamilton specifies that there are actually two militias; the first is organized, while the second consists of the rest of the people (Dolan Jr. 47).

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.This is the second amendment of our country from the Bill of Rights and is one that needs to be more strictly enforced! There was approximately 33,636 deaths in the US in the year 2015 due to guns, and that is just in our country! That number could have a chance most likely reduce if the country would enforce the second amendment of the Bill of Rights that allows the country to have the freedom of having a weapon. There are actually three main reasons why the US should more strictly enforce gun laws which are the amount of deaths by guns, the things people with guns could do, and hanging the state law of into a national one.