Supreme Court Case: Presser V. Cruikshank

This side was Heller and they argued that the District of Columbia was violating the second amendment. He explained that they were violating the second amendment by not allowing him to own a functioning firearm with a license. The court says, that a “militia” is a prefatory clause that does not limit the operative clause of the Amendment (Oyez). The amendment doesn’t limit the right to bear arms to those in the military, since it was made to protect the people’s rights. Antonin Scalia agreed with Heller, he said to read the second amendment to only allow military force to carry a working firearm would be violating the purpose of the English Bill of Rights.

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia held “that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban … violated that right.”1 The majority opinion addressed that the dissenting opinion contained a different interpretation of the Amendment. The “dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service.” 2 Justice Scalia explained that the respondent believed that the Second Amendment protected an individual right unconnected with militia service, and that it protects the right to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense.

United States is a country that has problems with gun control, and this issue has many debates between whether or not people should be allowed to carry a gun on them. This free county not only for speech and religion, but also allows people to have the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment of the United States was written by our Founding Fathers,“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” (Government). The main purpose of the Second Amendment when our Founding Fathers wrote this amendment was to help the American citizens to defend themselves from the government at that time, and other countries from invading their properties. However,

The Second Amendment states that people have the right to bear arms, but this is one of the most controversial and most-debated amendments. This is due to the fact that guns are dangerous, and are not always only used for self-defense. Guns have been used to kill children and faculty in schools, to violently make a political statement, and to threaten and scare citizens. Yet, the Second Amendment still stands. In a recent case, the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment.

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 second amendment of the United States 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” (Constitution). This has started a huge debate on whether or not this should be true. On one hand people believe that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" make an individual right in constitution. Under this theory the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. Gun control is considered unconstitutional by many American citizens, as it should be. Gun control is laws or

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

Although the 2nd Amendment only contains one sentence, the interpretation of it can be misconstrued if the use of critical thought is not applied during the analysis. Supporters of gun control argue that the ambiguous language in the 2nd Amendment leads to confusion about the interpretation. That in itself warrants further discussion about rewriting the 2nd Amendment or simply eradicating it. Also, the provision is outdated and no longer coincides with the times. In regards to the addition of “well regulated militia,” guns were meant to protect people from tyranny and any form of militarized government suppression. With that said, firearms should alternatively be restricted from other uses with

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 role guns play in our society has long been debated on whether or not citizens have the right to own guns. There are those who believe that guns have no role in the hands of private citizens. Whereas there are those who believe that guns are the very foundation that protects our rights and liberties expressed in the Constitution. The debate is over whether or not there should be stricter laws preventing people to own guns. Though gun control and gun rights advocates share similar views on background checks and requirements, each have different views on the safety of guns and the Second Amendment meaning.

The Second Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, (the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution) the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights was planned and sent to the states, and were later ratified on December 15, 1791.The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification (three-fourths of the States) on December 15, 1791.

The situation of gun control has been an issue for many years. The Second Amendment states that we as citizens have the right to bear arms and to protect ourselves. When the Constitution was first made the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the heart of the issue of gun control. It also states "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 states declared that the Amendment was only created to allow the government to bear arms. The way it reads though is that it grants the rights of all people to bear arms. There have been cases brought before the Supreme Court that has fought the right to bear arms and used the amendment to protect their rights. The government does not have the right to take away the guns from the people but is able to control the manufacturing, sales, and possessions of guns.

Preserving a well-regulated militia has been interpreted to protect weapons with a “judicial recognized militia-type weapon (Fafarman, p. 191).” United States v. Miller serves as a foundation case for this as it set a precedent of what actually defines a militia-type weapon. The sawed-off shotgun failed to embody basic traits of military equipment or common defense; therefore it was ruled unfit to contribute to a well-regulated militia. A sawed-off shotgun’s shooting pattern seems to promote seemingly terroristic activity rather than common defense, concluding that

The debate over the right to bear arms according to the Second Amendment has been a hotly contested issue for many years in American history. The matter has been one of the most controversial issues in the second half of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first; disputed between politicians on the liberal and conservative side along with issues such as abortion, capital punishment, and gay marriage. The Supreme Court has officially defined the controversial Second Amendment by stating that states have the right to maintain a militia separate from a federally controlled army (Gale Encyclopedia, pg. 155-162). However, “Courts have consistently held that the state and federal governments may lawfully regulate the sale, transfer,

Gun control is one of the most talked about topics in modern day America. 43 of 50 states have the right to bear arms. Most states have to background check you in order for you to purchase or sell guns. Some other states prevent carrying guns and some other ban assault rifle weapons. People who support the gun laws say that the second amendment was meant for militias and that gun restrictions have always existed. People who oppose that say that guns are needed for self-defense from people who invade houses or are actual threats. Although both of those are correct, there will always be two sides for control laws.