The amendments are a set of rights assured to every American as part of the freedom our country promises. The amendment that will be the focal point of this paper, the second, was ratified in 1791. It 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." Our country was a completely different place during those times, which is the reason I believe the Bill of Rights should be rewritten, and updated every so often. By updated, I do not mean anything taken away or added to it, but for the way it was written to be altered. If it was more easily understandable there would be no leeway for people to get away with limiting these rights of our people. …show more content…
One man in particular, Dick Anthony Heller, a police officer, who was able to carry a firearm while on duty, applied for a personal firearm license and had been denied. Realizing that the denial was against his constitutional right, he sued the District of Columbia. Heller’s first plan of action was to seek an injunction against the law enforcement, stating that his Second Amendment had been violated. This motion was dismissed by the Districts court. “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep firearms in the home for the purpose of self-defense, and the District of Columbia’s requirement that firearms kept in the home be nonfunctional violated that right”(District of Columbia v. Heller). Their strongest defense had been over …show more content…
This case had come after the ruling of the previously mentioned case, which lead to the motion brought forth by Otis McDonald against the state of Chicago. Not only McDonald, but others as well felt as though a Chicago law passed in 1982, went against their constitutional rights. The law passed stated that firearms could not be carried unless the owner held a permit. The problem though, was that the state of Chicago had prohibited registration of most handguns, which lead them to stop issuing permits completely. This meant that they restricted the ability to possess firearms altogether. Like Heller’s case, the District Court dismissed the suits. The question before the Court was whether the Second Amendment was a fundamental right that applied to all states. Chicago’s argued that it was not, due to the outcome of Heller versus District of Colombia, not specifically stating so. “Four members of the majority said the 2nd Amendment was applicable because it was “incorporated” in the 14th Amendment 's Due Process Clause, which guarantees that the states may not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (Rose). Self-defense also being a basic right, is also a leading component of the Second Amendment. Much of the support of McDonald’s case was taken from Heller’s case. Justice Alito stated, “This right applies to
After the Revolution, the country was left in an economic crisis and struggling for a cohesive path moving forward. The remaining financial obligations left some Founding Fathers searching for ways to create a stronger more centralized government to address concerns on a national level. The thought was that with a more centralized, concentrated governing body, the more efficient tensions and fiscal responsibilities could be addressed. With a central government manning these responsibilities, instead of the individual colonies, they would obtain consistent governing policies. However, as with many things in life, it was a difficult path with a lot of conflicting ideas and opponents. Much of the population was divided choosing either the
The Tenth Amendment was ratified along with the rest of the Bill of Rights on December 17th, 1791, as well, unlike most other amendments, it gave rights not only to the people, but also to the state governments. The Tenth Amendment was passed in order to delegate powers to the state governments and the people that the national government does not have, this amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. This amendment is the 8th bill of rights in the constitution of the United States of America. The death penalty is a direct violation of the constitution of the United States, and should be deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court. Although the death penalty shows justice at avenging the death of the innocent, it is not cost effective by being ten times more expensive than a criminal spending life in prison, and it violates the 8th amendment in the Constitution of the United States which is the supreme law of the land.
The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments are part of the Bill of Rights which includes the first ten Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. These rights apply to the citizens of our great country. The Fourth Amendment covers search laws and has a significant impact on law enforcement procedures. If these procedural rights are not followed, there can be devastating consequences to the outcome of a case.
On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified effective by Congress. These first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America promised the states certain rights and freedoms which could not be infringed by the government. After all, the founding fathers knew from experience that men in their weakness were often tempted by power. They had become all too familiar with this when under the control of King George in England. Therefore, in order to protect the future people of their beautiful country, they promised certain liberties which could not be taken away. Every single one of these freedoms is important for the United States of America. However, the second amendment is especially important to our nation because it allows the people to protect their freedom and defend themselves and the common good against an overreaching government.
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 statement basically means that people should be able to own guns for their own security and that right should not be taken away. The Second Amendment was added to the Constitution because the creators of the Constitution wanted to make sure that it protected basic rights, including the right to bear arms. It was also added to the Constitution because shortly after it was ratified, James Madison wanted to give more power to the state militia and to give more power to the people to give them the ability to fight back against the Federalists and the tyrannical government they were creating. After fighting off the British, the Second Amendment was created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against controlling government and protect themselves with their own weapons.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution(Second Amendment) of the United States of America(USA) is one of the most controversial. The Second Amendment specifically grants that, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"
The second amendment grants all Americans the right to bear arms. The ability to hold a firearm at any time as long as the firearm is registered. In the United states, all it takes to hold a firearm is a background check and a safety class. In a short reading from the “American Now” book a short article By Christina Tenuta called Responsible gun ownership saves lives she asks “do Americans really need guns?”, but are the guns really the problem? Although the second amendment requires some decent documents , the qualifications to obtain a firearm needs to be revised to a mental check, a family history check , and also to make it a priority for reinforcement to check on the registered firearm every six to twelve months.
Another standard set forth states that a court may assume that a provision may burden Second Amendment right to conceal carry, without determining whether it extends past the home, and then apply the appropriate level of scrutiny to determine the provisions constitutionality. The Fourth and Second circuit courts both follow this standard. We can first examine the Woollard case. In Woollard, the court determined whether Maryland’s “good and substantial reason” violated an individual’s right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. Id. at 879. The Woollard court adopted the use of a two-part approach developed under Heller court. Id. at 872. Under this test, the court elected to merely assume that the right to bear arms does extend outside
From this amendment it is apparent that the founders of our country knew in 1791 that guns did and would continue to play a role in the lives of Americans. Things haven't really changed that much.
The District of Columbia v. Heller plays an important role in shaping our right to keep and bear arms for self-defense by being the first court case that defines who can own guns for self-defend. The whole case is revolving around the Second Amendment and its meaning. Since the Second Amendment first enact into law in 1791, this prompts the court to look at it again. By understanding its original meaning, the court then can understand what intended to do and how it affects our current time. Before the Heller court case, States in America have its own laws on who can own and use guns. While some State is lax in their law...
This debate has produced two familiar interpretations of the Second Amendment. Advocates of stricter gun control laws have tended to stress that the amendment’s militia clause guarantees nothing to the individual and that it only protects the states’ rights to be able to maintain organized military units. These people argue that the Second Amendment was merely used to place the states’ organized military forces beyond the federal government’s power to be able to disarm them. This would guarantee that the states would always have sufficient force at their command to abolish federal restraints on their rights and to resist by arms if necessary. T...
The gun lobby might threated with suing in order to prevent the state governments from pursuing future bans on firearms and handguns due to high criminality. “Policymakers should rest assured, however, that nothing in the McDonald decision prevents them from adopting many types of reasonable laws to reduce gun violence.”(2010.Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence) Also in March 2010, “a federal district court rejected a Second Amendment challenge to many of those laws, including a ban on assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines, a one-handgun-a-month law, and a law requiring the reporting of lost or stolen firearms, demonstrating that many strong gun laws remain consistent with the Second Amendment.”(2010. Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence) . The threat of litigation upholding the Heller Right is present, but laws dealing with gun control in every other state are so much different than those of Chicago, giving ample room to bear and keep
The second amendment states “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.” The Founding Fathers included this in the Bill of Rights because they feared the Federal Government might oppress the population if the people did not have the means to defend themselves as a nation or individuals.
In the case many points were made about being able to have a gun for self defense. There is a quote that state all guns made during the creation of the first amendment and all guns that were made after it still are under it and protected by it. The quote states “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments