The First Amendment : The Second Amendment

Not only does the Second Amendment provide citizens with peace of mind that they can protect themselves against the authority, but it also allows citizens to protect themselves from fellow Americans, should the need arise. Firearms help to create a level playing field for all people, regardless of their age, size, gender, or even disability. Because we have the ability to carry arms, dangerous people no longer have the ability to pick and choose “easy” victims due to their lesser size or strength. No matter who you are, an added measure of security can make all the difference in a dangerous

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 Second Amendment is making headlines these days. The Second Amendment 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. This Amendment was ratified in December of 1791. This amendment was proposed by James Madison, after the constitution was ratified. “James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias…” (Brooks, The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms) The latest court case on the Second Amendment is the Peruta v. California “case”. But that was turned down the case. The Second Amendment is important because it provides self defense, enables U.S. citizens to hunt for food, and it allows for citizens of states in the U.S. to form militias.

Gun control is one of the most debated about topic today in America; between news outlet, the public, and politicians. As some politicians look to resolve the gun control issues, with banning them, imposing more restriction to sellers, buyers and owner; some people and politicians consider the second amendment to be relic and should be removed from the constitution. History has shown us time and time again even through all the violence and chaos in the world and America, that there is a reason for the creation of the second amendment. From history of America independence in 1776 to the ratification of the bill of right in 1791 the 2nd amendment still remains relevant form it creation, to modern times, and the protection of America’s future; for the freedom of its inhabitants and citizens. The once influential 20th century thinker George Santayana once said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. Looking back into ancient history, the history of second amendment, recent and current history we can find clues that will support the relevance of the 2nd amendment. We will also define the second amendment and try to find solutions to our current problems from what our forefathers had say.

     “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 Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is the amendment of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms. The amendment clearly 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. This means that citizens of the United States shall be able to carry firearms within reason to do so, when pertaining to safety. The Second Amendment has been disputed over the years and has become very controversial for many reasons. On one hand, it is considered to be one of the most important amendments in the Constitution because it presents the citizens of the United States with a means to protect themselves. On the other hand, some feel that over the years, certain citizens have over stepped their second amendment rights and as a result, there have been a number of national tragedies with numerous casualties.

The first amendment is one of the most used amendments today. Everyone in the world uses it and sometimes takes advantage of it and most times uses it when needed to. The Bill Of Rights was created on December 15th of 1779 and was created to make some rules in the future because no one had the freedom to do anything. Most were punished if they spoke their opinion, they did not even have the right to choose their own religion. But that all changed when James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights which is our first ten amendments. The First Amendment is and always will be the most used amendment today.

The truth to the statement that “Texas has a love affair with the 2nd amendment more than any of the other amendments” is circumstantial depending on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The second amendment is the most challenged amendment because it is so vaguely worded and not straight forward. It 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.” This somewhat incoherent statement leaves policy makers wondering whether the founding fathers were trying to protect gun ownership rights only for purposes of military duty and collective security or wanted to make guns accessible to all so that they could protect themselves. In order to asses if Texas’ love affair with the second amendment, we must look at the second amendment from both sides of the interpretation.

To begin with, the Fourth Amendment was constituted to protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, there are times and cases in which an investigation is started and evidence is collected illegally. There are doctrines such as The Exclusionary Rule and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree in place to eliminate any evidence to be used in court if obtained illegally. This paper will differentiate the two doctrines as well explain how and why the two could possibly be incorporated in the case of “Who did it.” We will also look into the immunity that government officials may have pertaining to civil liability and see if officers affiliated with the “Who did It” case are protected from their actions.

My paper is going to be focused on the Fourth Amendment, which sets the baseline for searches and seizures. I will present what the Fourth Amendment is, what the rights of the individual are as stated in the Fourth Amendment, what limitations may be held within the Fourth Amendment, what must be included within the warrant, and more. I decided to write on this topic as I believe that it is important for us as citizens to know what our rights are, and not just rely on what we think we know about the Constitution. A country which is educated about the rights which they have, and utilizes these rights in the correct instances is a country which is governed by laws, and

The Fourth Amendment states in part “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated….” 14 United States Code 89 gives the U.S. Coast Guard authority to board, inspect, or seize any U.S. vessel on the high seas or in U.S. territorial waters. The Supreme Court has ruled not every search or seizure requires probable cause or a search warrant, however, these are the exception to the rule. The Coast Guard’s blanket authority to board any U.S. vessel at any time harkens back to the British treatment of colonial America and fly’s in the face of the Fourth Amendment.

The amendments give citizens of the United States a plethora of their rights. Amendment II, for example, 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,” (Lund and Winkler). In other words, Amendment II gives American Citizens their right to have weapons in their home, but it does have limitations. When categorizing the evidence presented about the second amendment, one can analyze the foundation, violations, and uses then and now.

For the last few years when you turn on the news there has been a mass shooting somewhere in the United States. This sparked up massive debates about the right to bear arms. Then lobbyists like the NRA, (National Rifle Association), step in and started to protect our rights to have firearms. Since then people all over the United States have been debating about gun rights. The Second Amendment, “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 the most debated amendment in the Constitution.

A big issue that also surrounds the removal of the memorials nationwide is the role that the First Amendment plays in the argument. The statues, regardless of their original purpose, remain protected by the freedom of speech clause found in our Constitution. In James Bowman’s article, “Right Side vs White Side”, he plays devil’s advocate to those in favor of keeping the statues in place. Bowman states, “The Unite the Right protesters in Charlottesville were exercising their right to free speech and had a permit for their march. The left-wing protesters who set upon them with clubs and other weapons had no permit and were trying to deny them their right to speak,” (Bowman 3). Even though the basis of the march may have aggravated the left side and caused a headache for the residents in the vicinity, the march occurred legally. We live in a country where one has every right to express their opinions, in addition to formulating new ones, as long as they do not harm others. In fact, in this case, the left side, the so called “right side” in terms of this article, was in the wrong. Intolerant and rigid, they lacked the ability to listen to their own views be criticized and retaliated. Yes, the views expressed by both sides clashed, and yes, the hateful slurs used have no place in modern day society, but it was unfair to use physical actions against the words that were technically protected by society and the Constitution.

Weapons have evolved in significant ways since the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. The ratification of the Bill of Rights included the Second Amendment that claims, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (Spalding 33). Lawyer Les Adams speaks to these changes in The Second Amendment Primer. The Second Amendment Primer is a print source that has information before the Second Amendment ratification, and speaks to what the founding fathers meant originally making the Amendment. It also covers the press that was on the Second Amendment in colonial times. As well as in, court cases in the present day that have used the Second Amendment. That might have a biased on this stance because Les Adams is a part of the Republican Party. The Second Amendment has had many interpretations since the eighteenth century because of the definitions of the words that are being used in the Second Amendment. Although, there are many purists who feel the Second Amendment is perfectly fine the way it is for a variety of reasons, a deeper look into American society and gun-related violence suggests that we need to consider the idea of amending an outdated part of the Constitution.