The Pros And Cons Of The Due Process Clause

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,

Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm to use for lawful purposes, such as defending oneself within their home/property. The court case ruled that the Amendment was not connected to service in a militia (Constitution). Handgun possession is banned under District of Columbia law. This law prohibits the registration of handguns and makes it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm; additionally, all lawfully owned firearms must be kept unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock unless they are being used for lawful recreational activities or located in a place of business.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution 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." Gun ownership is an American tradition older than the country itself and is protected by the Second Amendment; more gun control laws would infringe upon the right to bear arms. Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB, in the June 26, 2008 District of Columbia et al. v. Heller US Supreme Court majority opinion syllabus stated, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." The McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) ruling also stated that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights."

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.

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).

The second amendment of United States constitution said “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 embraced on December 15, 1791, taking in consideration that American citizens have a natural right to self-defense and they can help to accomplish the following purposes:

is given to the citizens that live in the US. This right as well as many

The second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of people to bear arms and was adopted in 1791. It guarantees all Americans "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is more described as supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. Former Chief Justice of the United States, Warren E. Burger writes an essay regarding “The Right To Bear Arms,” that originally appeared in the Parade Magazine in the 1990’s that questions if “The Right To Bear Arms,” is an outdated idea. Burger argument is that the gun control would lower if handguns were lowered. He also talks about the”Militias,” which is an army that protects the security of the state. Our “State Militias,” in our time, serves as a huge national defense.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution gave United States citizens the right to bear arms. Although, the Second Amendment stated: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. However, the framers could not foresee the type of violence we have in our cities today. Innocent citizens have and are being brutally killed due to this amendment. Stricter gun control laws must be enacted to receive these types of weapons.

The Second Amendment 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”. The way the Supreme Court interprets this amendment changes constantly because not even the Supreme Court fully understands the limits and rights given to citizens. Some argue that this amendment protects our right to own a gun, but is not very clear. Over the years the second amendment has become a huge debate over gun rights and gun control. This is a cause of all the gun violence this country has been facing for many years and they need a way to help prevent gun violence or even suppress the amount of deaths faced by these tragedies. One of the ways this

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.

Recently the Supreme Court made specific rulings on the second amendment following the cases district of Colombia V. Heller and McDonald V. Chicago. It is easy for me to agree with both finding of the court. The second amendment in the bill of rights 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” the rulings found in both cases make the second amendment which was board to being with, very clear therefore it helps protect citizens rights when they’re right to bear arms is question.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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.” The constitution is clearly saying all citizens have the right to be able to own and carry a weapon or firearm. On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves (Cornell 1). This is showing how our founding fathers supported the right to bear arms.

After reviewing the Supreme Court ruling in the case of “District of Columbia vs. Heller” (2008) and the wording of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, I firmly believe the amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. Within the ruling, definitions from 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary were used to clarify meanings (at the time of the founding, which holds the same meaning now) and helped form the decision. The Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms, although the right is not unlimited.

Gun control infringes on the Second Amendment right of the American people.  The Second Amendment 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" (Adams).  In researching gun control, the government is not sure which way to enforce the law because they can not determine the fair interpretation of the amendment.  Even though gun control is suppose to reduce fire arm related crimes, it only makes it harder for law abiding citizens, or officers of the law to attain guns.  According to Hogberg there was a specific case of Heller vs. Washington D.C. that made a huge impact.  Dick Heller was asked to defend the people of D.C. against the government to gain the rights to own a hand gun.  The right of owning a hand gun in Washington D.C. was revoked in the early 1970's, but in 1976 an incident of a shooting changed