“Smith v. Cain, Warden.” Supreme Court Collection. 20122, 2014, CQ Press, an Imprint of SAGE Publications., n.d. Web. 28 January 2014. http://library.cqpress.com/scc/scyb11-1386-77056-2457619. “Napue v. Illinois-360 U.S. 264 (1959).” Justia U.S. Supreme Court.
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... ... middle of paper ... ... the Second Amendment provides a collective right to bear arms for individuals associated with an organized military force.
Some lawmakers support these ideas and claim that gun-violence will decrease if strict limitations are placed on the purchase and ownership of firearms. One thing people struggle to realize is that laws do not take guns out of the hands of criminals. They just take the guns out of hands of good citizens looking out for society’s best interests. Statistics about what really happens when strict gun laws are imposed on the American people show that the United States is a safer place to live when the average law-abiding citizen is allowed to own a firearm. Gun restriction is all about control.
Clede states, "that does not mean that the government can constitutionally prohibit all weapons, but it probably means that the government can reasonably regulate and limit their use." I agree with Clede's point. The language of the Constitution is very vague. 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." Never did the Constitution define or give examples of what a well regulated militia is or types of weapons deemed reasonable for protection.
He states, “We 're being told that even though these laws didn 't stop these attacks in these states, somehow they would work in the rest of the country," he Said. "I Know The Claim Is, 'We Don 't Expect It To Do Everything But It Will Do Some. ' Maybe They Could Point To One Case Where These Laws Would Make A Difference.”(Williams And Thompson) Lott makes a good point when regarding to guns and the laws that are in place. The current laws in California are stricter than our federal laws. Many believe that stricter gun laws across that nation will not prevent shootings because it did not prevent the shooting in San Bernidino.
Many gun enthusiasts don't believe that gun control laws will resolve the problem. They claim that only law abiding citizens would obey the laws - and they aren't the ones creating the problem. This group presents some good arguments for eliminating current gun control laws. One of the main arguments that anti gun control groups make is that they have a constitutional right to own guns. The second amendment to the constitution states that all American citizens have the right to bear arms.
Many advocators of gun rights support the second amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Some argue that the gun control law is not going to do any good for society and say that banning handguns is not the solution.
Although Americans fear what might happen if something is not done to curb the consequences guns may have, creating laws to regulate the usage of guns only brings about more crime. The Constitution has been the basis of this country for over two hundred years, and that Constitution provides Americans with rights for which they should thank the Founding Fathers. One of these rights is the right to bear arms, a right that shall not be infringed.