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. During this project, I watched and reports about the Supreme Court's decision from …show more content…
That clip was then followed by a quote from Justice John Paul Stevens' dissenting opinion as well as a short statement by Congresswoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) which was made during Elena Kegan's confirmation hearing. The reporter drew attention to the fact that the court did not strike down Chicago's hand gun ban, but rather sent it back to a lower court noting the fact that legal analysts expect lower courts to overturn the law in light of Supreme Court decision. Smith then drew attention to the fact that the right to own handguns does not, in the estimation of the Court, overturn restrictions on waiting periods or assault weapons. The Supreme Court's 2nd Amendment Decision, Correspondent James Rosen, June 28, 2010 After this initial report, Smith introduced James Rosen a reporter in Washington DC. Rosen equated this case to Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade, in that it is a momentous victory for 2nd amendment advocates. Mr. Rosen then discussed the majority opinion written by Alito balancing it by showing a clip of Paul Helmke from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, in which he said that this ruling does not affect the things which they are fighting against. Helmke emphasized that the ruling applies only to the right to own handguns, and does not appear to effect waiting periods and restrictions on military grade assault
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
For example, in California, a young male came into an elementary school with a 7.62x39 semi-automatic rifle and shot and killed four children. After this tragedy, the Fourth Circuit court ruled that assault style weapons are not protected by the ruling made by the Supreme Appellate Court in the case DC v Heller. (The Monitor, Mar. 2010). Just like in California, other areas of the country were having the same debate on just how far the Supreme Court decision on the second amendment protecting the right to self defense goes. In MaryLand, within the fourth circuit of appeals (National Review, Feb. 2017), assault style weapons were also banned. This included certain handguns which was against the decision in Heller v DC.
The following critical analysis of the Essay, “The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms” by Lee Professor of Law at William and Mary Law School, William Van Alstyne, is intended to highlight a few of the different short-comings and argumentative fallacies presented by even the most legally astute individuals who oppose forms of gun control. While the author does present a multi-facet and well-orchestrated presentation of fact and principle, there are two essential claims being asserted on his part. The author’s intent is to demonstrate the importance of gun right protection and to justify the NRA’s practices in the name of doing so. In my dissection of the essay, I intend to demonstrate the argumentative fallacies and examine the ways in which the NRA is generally harmful to the progression of gun control reform, and therefore public safety in the United
Most people would link violence and crime problems with gun control in America. The debate that Americans face today is the freedom the Second Amendment gives citizens and whether or not the country should repeal it. While some people feel that repealing it should solve the problem, others believe that it is one of the most important basic freedoms we have as Americans. Federal gun control laws are unconstitutional, and I believe the Second Amendment is both an individual and state right.
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."
In June of 2008, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of DC vs Heller and upheld an individual rights interpretation (regardless of militia service, an individual has a Constitutional right to own a gun). The Court stated that the right could be limited: "There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited… Thus we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."   Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution Policy Action Committee, 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."  Further rights of individualism looks at gun control laws such as background checks, are an invasion of privacy. Many opposers to gun control believe that changes would result in the government taking away all guns from United States citizens by giving them too much
Prior to this case there were two forms of gun control acts the first was that of 1968 which forbids gun sells to sell guns to people that have a felony charge that are mentally unstable and other things this was amended with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act which included the need to have a background check. While working to make a system that could make the check fast it had to be done by state law enforcement. People however started to claim that this act was unconstitutional and it violated their rights given to them under the Constitution. The Petitioners filed separate actions challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act’s interim provisions and in each case the District
Throughout the course of American history, the court systems of the Judicial Branch have determined what is and isn’t acceptable in today’s society. Without the precedents set forth by the Supreme Court, the people of America would run wild and not have any disciplinary consequences. Although some cases that appear before the judges may be simple and easily acquire a unanimous decision, many hearings cause much controversy not only for the justices, but for the American people as well. Even though the Constitution of the United States states in the Second Amendment citizens can legally bear arms, it is still a hot topic that tends to cause much debate. Despite the substantial tensions about the right to bear arms, the Second Amendment was not
On June 17, 2016, an editor from the St. Louis Post Dispatch published an article, “Now is the time for common-sense gun control,” that briefly talks about how gun lobbyists are striking fear on the citizens and how gun control advocates need to keep pushing harder. The writer also reviews the Second Amendment and how gun culture affects today’s society.
Heller, the court ruled that “the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing individual right to keep and bear arms…including, ‘the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation’” (National Rifle Association, 2011 par 4). Although the Constitution gives individuals the right to bear arms, it does not exclude “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places…or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms,” (Romano & Wingert, 2011 par 13). In recent years here has been much discussion among the nation’s lawmakers and their constituents as to whether or not the Second Amendment is still constitutional; the question is whether or not the Second Amendment should be revised, to prohibit the sale of firearms to those who do not meet certain conditions and qualifications, or even removed from the constitution. According to a national survey of 1,005 high school students, conducted by Vittes, Sorrenson and Gilbert, “63.7 percent of high school students believe that regulating the sale of guns does not violate the constitution” (2003, pg 12). In the same survey, 64.6 percent responded that they would support stricter laws addressing the sale of firearms, and 82.2 percent of those surveyed, believe that the government should make and enforce laws making it more difficult for
In the year of 2007, “Garland voted to rehear a case regarding a restrictive handgun ban, in which was struck down by a D.C. Circuit panel of judges” (Wagner). Garland and about two other judges’ votes to review the rejecting ban was unsuccessful, and eventually the case went to the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the ban was struck down in 2008 by the Supreme Court with an opinion written by the past Justice Antonin
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights that guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This amendment, adopted on December 15, 1791 along with the rest of the Bill of Rights was created or several reasons. One is to ensure citizens’ rights to own a firearm. This topic has become one of the most controversial topics over the last century. It has led more debates over the rising violence in society today. For example, what role firearms play in violence, how to control the sale of weapons, and how to put an end to all violence involving guns. Guns are regulated by federal, and state, legislation. There is little, if any uniformity state versus state. The major regulatory issues are child access and prevention laws, concealed weapon carry laws, regulation on private sales to minors, regulating all secondary used market sales, ownership or purchase of ‘assault” type weapons, one handgun a month law, ban on Saturday Night Specials and others of this type, preemption, and waiting periods of ownership. The key question to control is when will it be enough. How many laws are they going to make before they ban gun sales to law-abiding citizens altogether. The Second Amendment was written for specific reasons. It was not written for them to come back and add all these provisions to it. These
December 4, 2015, in San Bernardino, CA, fourteen residents at the Inland Regional Center lost their lives due to Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik shooting many residents. Attending a holiday party at the center for thousands of residents with disabilities, Mr. Farook left the center “angry” over a dispute and came back with Ms. Malik. Armed with .223- caliber assault rifles and semiautomatic handguns, they killed 14 residents and wounded at least 17. Shootings seem to be becoming more habitual, therefore, people fear guns and want to enact gun control laws. Recent attacks from terrorist groups spark the question of who should have the right to own guns. Controversies over interpreting the Second Amendment date back to the turn of the twentieth century because so many viewpoints and regulations have accumulated; it is all in the manner of which interpretation citizens subscribe to- loose verses strict interpretation. Due to the controversies, certain gun regulations have been enacted and fears have risen because of this.
The court strengthen the amendment with the case McDonald v. City of Chicago. Seventy- six year old Otis McDonald and Adam Orlov and David and Colleen Lawson challenged Windy’s city because they were banning the possession of handguns in 1982. The case was organized by Heller’s attorney Alan Gura. Otis McDonald considers himself one of few defenders of peace and security on the leafy, house-lined street where three of his children grew up and played. The gangbangers and drug dealers have taken over, he says. “You go out there in the morning and pick up bottles and things on the lawn,” he explains, describing events of the past summer. “They’re out there at three in the morning, in the middle of the street, drinking and smoking their stuff. They throw stuff all over your lawn, and you can’t say anything, because they might up and shoot you.” McDonald says his house has been broken into three times and his garage twice most recently, early one morning this past August by a man McDonald recognized from around the neighborhood. Does McDonald think the robber planned to sell the stolen possessions for drugs? “Of course, of course,” he says matter-of-factly. (as cited in Tanaka) By a five to four decision the court ruled that the second amendment was integrated by the fourteenth amendment the due process section so therefore individuals’ could have handguns in their household for self-protection.
There are new proposed gun control laws in the aftermath of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut that occurred on December 14th, 2012. This incident claimed the lives of twenty 1st graders and six adults and has set the government in motion to try to prevent future acts of violence by strengthening gun control laws in the United States (Smith). This has been a topic that has been an extremely emotional debate with people on both sides unwilling to compromise. Gun advocates and critics of the new proposed gun laws argue that these new laws infringe on our constitutional
In McDonald v. the City of Chicago, the Court found that an individual’s right to lawfully possess a firearm for the purposes of self defense under the Second Amendment applied to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment(Krouse). The Fourteenth Amendment states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws(Fourteenth Amendment).”