The right to carry a concealed firearm is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. This right alone should be enough justification for the Legislative Branch of government to mandate all states to abide by this constitutional right of its citizens. The law enforcement within each state alone cannot guarantee the safety of its citizens. Responsible citizens should have the right to protect their families and the states should not impede on this right by not allowing concealed carry (O’Shea, 2012, p. 585). Recently in Wisconsin, there was a good news story displaying the necessity for concealed carry.
Terri’s law was ruled as unconstitutional in a seven to zero vote by the United States Supreme Court. We are a country built on laws and we must govern our decisions by the rule of that law and not by how we feel. Anyone with a heart can understand the grief demonstrated by the members of Terri’s family. But that is not the letter of the law. What is in the Constitution always must always be up held over
Print. In his piece “A Well-Regulated Militia” Paul Fussell discusses the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. Fussell expresses his opinions of the National Rifle Association of America’s interpretation of the Second Amendment and their lack of acknowledging the entire amendment. Fussell informs readers that on the right panel of the NRA’s entrance it reads, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Fussell also informs that the left panel does not state the first half of the quotation which states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” Fussell declares that by leaving out the first half of the quotation that “The NRA doesn’t want to remind anyone of the crucial dependent clause of the Second Amendment, who’s latter half alone it is so fond of invoking to urge its prerogatives”(146). He offers that the NRA is not willing to accept the Second Amendment in its entirety and what is was meant for.
The Second Amendment interpretation is flawed by In Molly Ivins's article, "Ban the Things. Ban Them All." She supports the Second Amendment, and she points out the main objective of signing this document is the authorization of a group of individuals that's trained to carry fire arms, even though they are not part of government. They may carry arms for security purposes in order to maintain a free state, and that this group of individuals have the right to keep and carry arms. The authors' main argument, is against individuals that are not trained to carry arms, nor do these individual carry arms to maintain a free state.
David Gray CJUS 200 Application Essay 2-15-14 Can you seize the marijuana plants at that time? If yes, what is your legal justification for doing so? If no, what legally prohibits you from doing so? No, as a police officer you would not be able to seize the marijuana plants at this time, by doing so you would be violating the rights of the citizens of the house that was entered due to the noise ordinance. Actually, the fourth amendment would actually keep you from doing so because it states that “every citizen right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property –whether through police stops of citizens on the street, arrests, or searches of homes and businesses”.
Victims and others affiliated in the shooting sued Glock, claiming negligent marketing and public nuisance. Glock aimed for a dismissal for two reasons, that they could not be held liable for the criminal acts of Furrow and as the manufacturer, Glock owed no duty of care to the third-party victims of Furrow's firearm misuse. Furrow's criminal firearm misuse constituted a superseding cause of the victims' injuries for which Glock could not be held responsible. This was before the PLCAA was enacted. This claim had not come to a conclusion prior to the PLCAA, therefore, still
Nick Hasch Gun Less is Defenseless Have you ever heard The Right to Bear Arms"? This is the second amendment of the Constitution. Some people say that owning firearms is a privilege, but it isn't it a right given to us in the constitution. The second amendment states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". (Jordan).This means that the people of the United States have the right to own firearms and that this right shall not be taken away.
GUN CONTROL “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 has created a debate for the United States, which has caused controversy throughout the American people. Some argue that the amendment creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" clearly states that citizens should be able to bear arms for protection. Under this "individual right 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
This is the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights which 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” (1791). Throughout various political systems, the one constant of a tyrannical government has been the disarming of citizens. Thomas Jefferson once famously said: “No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government.” The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1791, as a direct result of the Revolutionary War; without access to weapons, the colonists would not have been able to defeat the British troops (Lunger). When the government begins to regulate which guns we can use, how many bullets we can load, the procedure used to purchase a gun, with background checks and waiting periods, it is only a matter of time before they take guns away entirely.
Chicago, McDonald sued Chicago arguing that the gun ban violated his individual Second Amendment right to have a gun for personal use. The case was brought before the Supreme Court and in 2010 in a five four split the Supreme Court held “An individual’s right to keep and bear arms is incorporated and applicable to the states through the 14th Amendments Due Process Clause” (Guncite 2). Justice Alito set forth “that it is a fundamental right and the 14th Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the states” (Guncite 2); this was the first time that the Supreme Court extended these rights to the states. The justices emphasized that this ruling and the Second Amendment “only protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for lawful uses such as self defense” (Guncite 4). The Court made it clear that the Second Amendment does not protect all types of firearms or uses and that some state regulation is “constitutionally permissible” (Schwartz