Over the course of American history, the law has seen many significant and monumental changes. These changes are more often than not a result of a landmark court case. A landmark case is a court decision that has or would eventually have a significant or everlasting impact on the United States. These cases that have occurred explain many of the laws that exist today, and they even help to explain American culture. The Bill of Rights has been involved in a fair amount of court cases. The right to bear arms seems to be the most controversial in the United States today. Many people question how the current laws came to be and how America has arrived at its’ ideologies surrounding gun laws. The National Firearms Act introduced in 1934 called for …show more content…
Their laws did not allow for the registering of handguns and the holding of any functionable weapon in one’s home. Dick Heller, a police officer in the District of Columbia in 2008, was furious when the District refused to give him a registration to hold a weapon in his home. He instantly began preparing for an appeal case with a focus on the second amendment rights. There is an everlasting debate as to what specific rights are granted in the right to bear arms. However, there existed many important, minute details in the case. Heller’s other argument mentions that the weapon that he is constitutionally allowed to possess in his home should be operable and readily available. His justification is that Americans have the lawful right to protect themselves with force in the case of self defense. On June 26, 2008, The Supreme Court would announce a 5-4 verdict in Heller’s favor. The decision also recognizes that no weapon shall be openly carried without specific registration. Also, that the sale of firearms will include many more conditions. In addition, no convicted felon or any individual with mental illness may purchase a firearm. Lastly, the decision mentioned that no weapon may be in anyone’s possession in locations such as schools and government buildings. These are all laws that are still in tact today and some remain more controversial than …show more content…
The gun law is absolutely no exception. The idea that one should be able to readily and efficiently defend themselves is extremely important. The accessibility of weapons increases the chances that someone will actually need a weapon to defend him or herself. This is important because the best example of this law in action is self defense. However, this has negative effects on society as well. People will unlawfully draw weapons, and use them for everything other than their intended purposes. People have used their easily, legally purchased guns to rob stores, steal, threaten, and even kill others. Statistics will fight to surface the truth as to whether the gun laws save more lives than they take. While it is most commonly saved more lives, the number of lives that have been taken is significantly increasing and spurring the most controversy. The law continues to change, and court cases involving the gun laws will continue to take
In 1976, the District of Columbia City Council enacted three of the strictest gun control ordinances in the United States. The ordinances entirely ban the possession of handguns within the District and, while allowing residents to keep rifles and shotguns in their homes, require those guns be kept disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. Then in 2003, Dick Heller and five other plaintiffs were recruited by lawyer, Robert Levy, and used to file suit against D.C. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the D.C. Gun Ban violated their Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms." The District Court found that the Second Amendment should not give an individual the right to gun ownership except where the individual is a member of an organized militia and granted the District's motion to dismiss. Heller and the other plaintiffs then appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals then questioned whether the plaintiffs could even challenge the Gun Ban because the requirement was that a plaintiff must have suffered an actual injury due. In D.C. simply wanting to keep a handgun at home I snot enough to challenge the law. The court found that only Heller had a viable case, because he suffered an actual injury when the District denied his application for a handgun permit. The court dismissed the others from the suit because the ban had not actually impacted them yet. The Court of Appeals then considered whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right or a right contingent on membership in a well-regulated militia. The court determined that when Congress passed the Bill of Rights, the term "militia" referred generally and broadly to the...
Heller,” the United States Supreme Court revealed what the Second Amendment is really about. In June 2008, a S.W.A.T. officer with the Washington, D.C., Police Department sued in the District of Columbia District Court for the right to carry a handgun while off duty. The Supreme Court ruled that he had the right to carry a weapon for a lawful purpose, and the District Court's opinion was reversed from the decision in 1939 when the Second Amendment was last interpreted. It also ruled that two District of Columbia laws, one that banned handguns and the other one that required firearms kept in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violated the Second Amendment
During the 111th Congress, the gun control debate was looked into by two key Supreme Court decisions. In District of Columbia v. Hel...
When it comes to violence, the stricter gun laws will only help the criminals hurt more innocent people. I believe this is because during the Prohibition years in the United States people were still able to find alcohol and the government could not do anything about it. Drugs have become a huge problem and the government still has yet to find a way to stop all drugs from reaching consumers. This exact same thing will happen with guns. There is no stopping supply and demand and if a criminal wants a gun, they are going to find it.
To formulate an opinion on gun laws relating to places of employment the U.S. Constitution and Indiana Constitution must first be examined. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution 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.” Simply proclaiming people of the U.S. have the preserved and irrevocable right to own and carry firearms to ensure safety and freedom of the people. The 14th Amendment extends these laws to the state by the “equal protection of the laws.” Written as “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” the amendment gives power to the U.S. Constitution over state when a matter of rights is concerned.
Tushnet, Mark. "Interpreting the Right to Bear Arms---Gun Regulation and Constitutional Law." The New England Journal of Medicine. 3 Apr. 2008. Web. 15 Oct. 2011.
The United State of America, established by the Founding Father who lead the American Revolution, accomplished many hardship in order to construct what America is today. As history established America’s future, the suffering the United State encountered through history illustrate America’s ability to identify mistakes and make changes to prevent the predictable. The 2nd Amendment was written by the Founding Father who had their rights to bear arms revoked when they believe rising up to their government was appropriate. The Twentieth Century, American’s are divided on the 2nd Amendment rights, “The right to bear arms.” To understand why the Founding Father written this Amendment, investigating the histories and current measures may help the American people gain a better understanding of gun’s rights in today’s America.
Guns have been around for a very long time. People love being able to have the freedom to do what they want, especially when they can possess something that make them feel superior. The introduction of the Second Amendment opens up the controversial, yet well anticipated opportunity for United State citizens to be able to own guns. Americans enjoy the benefit of being able to own guns for decades over people in other countries. People can buy guns and carry them around in public. They own guns for many reasons such as to hunt, to protect themselves, and simply to satisfy their desire of owning a gun, but in recent years, the issue of people carry guns has become a problem. There are so many people get killed by guns in different parts of the country. This raised the alarm to the government to decide whether the regulation of guns should be looked after. These issues, once again, spark out a big debate in America about whether the right to bear arms given by the Second Amendment was handing the states the right to maintain militia units or giving people the rights to possess and carry guns.
The right to own a gun has evolved over the years. Owning a gun is not just about possessing it, it’s about knowing you can protect yourself. Every person has the right to protect themselves and feel safe, t...
With many recent incidents that involve guns between 2012 and 2013, gun control laws have become a hot topic in America. On one hand, after the horrific incident like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting at Newtown in 2012, most people wanting to limit guns from getting into the wrong by setting up a rigorous system that control who can and cannot obtain a gun. On the other hand, we have the people who believe that with such rigorous system in place is violated the individual rights that granted and protected by the United States Constitution. They believe that the rigorous system will prevent people from defending themselves and could be a violation of their privacy. Regardless of which side is right, if we want to understand more about our current conflict, we have to look back on how this hold debate started. The District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court case in 2008 that found the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 unconstitutional, which influence the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense by questioning the Second Amendment and laws that restrict a person from acquire guns.
As violence and murder rates escalate in America so does the issue of gun control. The consequence of this tragedy births volatile political discourse about gun control and the Second Amendment. The crux of the question is what the founding fathers meant when they wrote, “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.” Since the writing of the Second Amendment the make and model of firearms has changed dramatically and so has the philosophies of the people. A rifle is no longer defined as a single shot, muzzle-loading musket used to primarily protect families or solely for food. Should the weapons we use today be protected by an amendment written nearly 222 years ago? Should the second amendment be rewritten? Does the Second Amendment apply to individual citizens? These questions spark extensive debates in Washington D.C. regarding what the founding fathers intended the amendment to be. The answer to this question lies in the fact that despite hundreds of gun control articles having been written , still the gun control issue remains unresolved. History tells us gun control debates will be in a stalemate until our judicial system defines or rewrites the Second Amend. This paper will examine the history of the Second Amendment, and attempt to define the framers intent, gun control legislation and look at factors that affect Americans on this specific issue...
The issue of gun control has always been a hot topic among the American public. Most everyone, if asked, will tell you that gun control is an issue needed to be dealt with because of the event that took place at Columbine High School back on April 20th, 1999. The American public has been wrestling with gun control long before then. If we take a look back at August 1st, 1966 at the University of Texas, a man armed with a hunting rifle committed one of the most violent mass murders in history. Gun control refers to the Government placing restrictions on the American public to buy, own and sell firearms. If we read the constitution, our second amendment right is the right to bear arms. This has been the ongoing controversy of this issue. We the people say our constitutional right to buy and own firearms is being seized from us. The government is using our society’s violent incidents as cover to place restrictions and bans on firearms. This essay’s purpose is to provide proof that buying and owning firearms is our legal constitutional right and that our government is trying to attack the wrong angle when trying to fight crime involving guns in the United States.
The right to bear arms has been an important conversation in America for decades. As of recent tragedies such as the Sandy Hook shooting and the Aurora Colorado Theater shooting, the debate is more heated than ever. From large-scale massacres to single fatality shootings, gun violence is unwarranted and heartbreaking. However, the Second Amendment protects individual citizens’ right to own firearms: “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,” it states (Bill of Rights). Although this part of the Bill of Rights has not been changed in United States’ history, some citizens argue that, because the Constitution is a working document, this should be adapted to fit current needs and protect communities. Citizens who wish tip the scale in favor of the community’s protection argue that guns are dangerous, easy to access, popular weapons that allow disgruntled or mentally unstable citizens to “inflict mass causalities” and were originally only intended for use in a militia (Joe Messerli). On the other hand, those who wish to benefit civilians argue that taking away guns restrains individual liberty and that gun control would prove futile because criminals would find ways such as the black market to obtain guns, weapons can serve as self-defense prevent crimes, and reasonable restrictions would be more effective than an outright ban (Joe Messerli). Both arguments have valid, well developed ideas, and both sides tend to be passionate in debate.
For years proposals for gun control and the ownership of firearms have been among the most controversial issues in modern American politics. The public debate over guns in the United States is often seen as having two side. Some people passionately assert that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns while others assert that the Second Amendment does no more than protect the right of states to maintain militias. There are many people who insist that the Constitution is a "living document" and that circumstances have changed in regard to an individual’s right to bear arms that the Second Amendment upholds. The Constitution is not a document of total clarity and the Second Amendment is perhaps one of the worst drafted of all its amendments and has left many Americans divided over the true intent.
Professional champions of civil rights and civil liberties have been unwilling to defend the underlying principle of the right to arms. Even the conservative defense has been timid and often inept, tied less, one suspects, to abiding principle and more to the dynamics of contemporary Republican politics. Thus a right older than the Republic, one that the drafters of two constitutional amendments the Second and the Fourteenth intended to protect, and a right whose critical importance has been painfully revealed by twentieth-century history, is left undefended by the lawyers, writers, and scholars we routinely expect to defend other constitutional rights. Instead, the Second Amendment’s intellectual as well as political defense has been left in the unlikely hands of the National Rifle Association (NRA). And although the NRA deserves considerably better than the demonized reputation it has acquired, it should not be the sole or even principal voice in defense of a major constitutional provision.