This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1971, such as the other bill of rights. After the court case with District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, the court ruled that you may posses a firearm even if you are not in any militia or army and to use that firearm for lawful purposes only, such as self defense and home protection. In McDonald v. Chicago court case, the court that the Second amendment limits the State and local government to the same extent as the federal government. When they adopted this amendment way back in the late 1700s, it was made for the militias that were made to fight in war. So they may fight in war and protect themselves, home, and family members.
Webster’s American English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, defines right as “something to which one has a just claim”, while the second amendment states that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, this have been the source of much controversy regarding gun ownership and rights (“Right” def. n.2). The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution was written in 1871 and states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is much information available today regarding using one’s rights or lose them. Gun control is a constant topic in the media and for politicians.
It is claimed that the founding fathers worded certain parts of the constitution vaguely and in general terms in order to prepare for future changes without needing to make an amendment. for example the first amendment states ‘congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
The opponents of these laws say that Americans have the right to bear arms. They believe that the laws would stop individuals from defending their property of themselves. The significant disagreement that opponents argue is that the right to use and own weapons is a personal freedom promised by the Constitution. Individuals against gun control also think that certain people should not be allowed to own guns but also think that stricter laws can stop the needless loss of life. The debate over gun control has been one a main topic since the 20th century.
In the Landmark Case, District of Columbia V. Heller that took place in 2008, Dick Heller, whom is the petitioner of this case, was refused by the District of Columbia to register a handgun he wished to keep in his home. Heller filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court against the District of Columbia on the violations of rights of the Second Amendment. Heller’s argument stated that the Second Amendment provided an individual the right to keep and bear arms for a wide range of purposes beyond militia services. He claimed the right to possess a “functional firearm” that is accessible to be used when necessary for self-defense at home. The District of Columbia argued back that the Second Amendment only protects firearm rights that are closely tied to the service in a well-regulated state militia.
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” (FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment). This has been interpreted in various ways, depending on one’s definition of the word “militia.” Gun control advocates define it as only military personnel, while those who are not in support of gun control define it as anyone who is trained in using firearms. George Mason, a Founding Father from Virginia who championed states’ rights and the
They asked the court to declare Chicago law banning handguns unconstitutional. Chicago’s law does not expressly prohibit handgun ownership, but Justice Alito argued that it effectively does so. The law requires all owners of firearms to apply for a permit. Most handguns are excluded from the list of approvable firearms, therefore making it nearly impossible for any resident to own a handgun. Both the petitioners were ruled against by the United States District Court Judge and the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Post-Civil War, under a Republican Congress, the Court was reluctant to hand down any decision that questioned the legitimacy of military courts, especially in the occupied South. The President's ability to suspend habeas corpus independently of Congress, a central issue, was not addressed, probably because it was moot with respect to the case at hand. Though President Lincoln suspended the writ nationwide on September 24, 1862,[1] Congress ratified this action almost six months later, on March 3, 1863, with the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act. Milligan was detained in 1864, well after Congress formally suspended the writ. That notwithstanding, military jurisdiction had been
Obama voted for the AR band and McCain voted against it. They were also veiwing different sides when it came to the Heller vs. Columbia case. McCain wanted the ban on guns in D.C to be lifeted while Obama did not say a thing. McCain also voted on a bill that went against the government taking the citizens fire-arms in times of crises’s. So as you can see from where they stand Obama is a little more for Gun Control while McCain is almost completely Agenst it.
Opponents to gun rights claim that we live in a different time than in 1791 and it is true that guns are not owned today to repel invasion of a tyrannical government. However, one would also have to realize that many of the reasons for gun rights in 1791 are still true today, such as; facilitating a means of self-defense and repelling invasion of one’s home (Poe 199). As recently as 2008 the Supreme Court ruled in DC that it is a constitutional right for law abiding citizens not affiliated with law enforcement to possess a handgun for protection, over turning the gun ban. The United States has such a deep historical connection with guns and just as historically many people today still enjoy recreational shooting both with modern and antique