“Citizenship means standing up for the lives that gun violence steals from us each day.” This essay, inspired by the above words spoken by President Barack Obama during his State of the Union Address on January 28, 2014, will serve as a wakeup call to the American people, in the hope that they will come to their senses and drastically change their countries’ gun laws. Every year approximately 115.000 people in the United States are shot in murders and assault, (attempted) suicides, unintentional shootings or by police intervention, and around one-third of these people die from gun violence (Brady Campaign). This makes gun-related fatalities to be one of the largest non-natural causes of death in the United States. With these statistics …show more content…
However, in the twentieth century “[c]onstitutional scholars have argued vociferously about whether the comma separating those two parts signifies that the right to keep and bear arms without state interference is confined to the use of such arms in conjunction with one’s duties as part of a government-sanctioned militia or army, or whether there is an individual right to keep and bear arms under any circumstances” (Beeman 63-4). Throughout the years the Supreme Court has made a number of important rulings on the Second Amendment and the individual right to keep and bear arms. The first major court case concerning this issue was United States v. Cruikshank (1875) in which the Supreme Court held that the individual right to keep and bear …show more content…
Heller (2008) this decision was overturned. In this landmark decision the Supreme Court ruled that “[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home (2-53). With this ruling the Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 which required that all firearms be kept be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock” (sec. 702). The Supreme Court held that “[t]he operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms” (District of Columbia v. Heller 2-22). In the 2010 follow-up case McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court found that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms” granted by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (10-11, 33-34). This meant that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments in the same manner it limits the federal government. Thus, at this moment in time individual Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Nevertheless, the debate on the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms continues unabated, with strong camps both in support and in
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms. When the Second Amendment was written it was for the right to arm oneself as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, gun advocates proclaim that guns are for the right to self-defense. Some people try to participate and uphold the law. We have seen how guns in the hands of children can cause fatal accidents and people have committed mindless crimes leading to
This was the first time in seventy years that the Supreme Court heard about what exactly the Second Amendment meant or included in relations to its gun control and ownership laws. The case was brought finally to the Supreme Court after going through both the District Court and the Court of Appeals. In District Court, the case was dismissed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina. After this, the case was sent to the Court of
In my first case, I will analyze the Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. In this case, in a 5-4 decision, the Court overrules its decision in United States v. Miller, in which, it stated that the Second Amendment only protects the right to keep and bear arms in relation with service in a well-regulated, government sponsored militia. In the majority opinion of Heller, Scalia divides the Second Amendment into two parts: the prefatory clause and the operative clause. The prefatory clause is the first half of the Second Amendment, it reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” while the operative clause is the second half of the Amendment: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
After deeply analyzing the Second Amendment, Justice Stevens concluded that the Founders of The Constitution would have specified the individual right as an aspect of the Second Amendment if that was intended. In other words, the Second Amendment does not create an unlimited right to possess firearms in self-defense. The militia preamble demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on the state militia service only. Moreover, regarding D.C. v. Heller (2008), the Court concluded that the individual right to bear arms does not extend to felons or mentally ill. Thus, the background check requirement for all gun sales does not violate the Second Amendment.
Since the signing of the United States Constitution, the dividing of powers in the United States has been based on the sharing of powers between the national government and the local governments (state governments in the case of the United States), which became known as Federalism. Amendment II 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 Second Amendment has most recently been interpreted to grant the right of gun ownership to individuals for purposes that include self-defense. At first it was thought to apply only to the Federal government, but through the mechanism of the Fourteenth Amendment, it has been applied to the states as
Recently, the second amendment, the right to bear arms, has been under intense scrutiny and misinterpretation of this amendment is a growing problem spreading
Debates about the Second Amendment have focused on its parameter to protect private rights of individual people to possess firearms, and the ability to be apart of militia organizations. The world has seen a drastic change since the implementation of the amendment in 1791. Civilian ran militias are almost obsolete, and most militias are now ran and regulated by state governments. The military of the United states has also seen a dramatic increase, and is undoubtedly more powerful. For the most part, civilians are no longer expected or desire to be apart of a militia, however firearms are still essential for self defence, hunting, and
Updating the Amendment 2.0 The right to bear arms has been a favoured constitutional law since its establishment in 1791, but as more gun related violence and accidents occur, there has been increasing debate on whether or not guns should be banned in the US altogether, and if not, what regulations should be required for the purchase and handling of them. While guns should not be completely banned from the country, the rules and regulations of gun laws should be tightened. In the 2nd amendment, it clearly states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” While this statement still holds true, the evolution of firearms and how they have become more dangerous throughout the years is a clear sign of why the laws should be changed.
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.” The forefather’s intention in giving this right to the citizens of the United States was to protect and ensure that one was capable to defend himself from the government and be free of the military and keep the government in check if it were to try to control its people. The right to keep and bear arms was given because at the time the British government had outlawed the possession of arms by citizens so that the British military could control the citizens and the forefathers knew that to keep the government in check and prevent total control by the military the citizens must have the right to keep bear arms. Many Colorado and other U.S. citizen’s feel their constitutional right was infringed on when the State of Colorado outlawed the possession, sale or transfer of a large capacity magazine in 2013. This law was enacted specifically to individuals possessing (owners of such magazines prior to July 1, 2013 were grandfathered in and allowed to keep and possess magazines with 15+ rounds), selling or transferring any magazine that could hold over 15 rounds of ammunition
The right to bear arms has been a controversial issue ever since James Madison established it as the second amendment of the constitution. 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” (US Const. amend. II). Those in favor of the second amendment, believe that arms are used for protection, dangerous situations, and sports.
The question on whether the 2nd Amendment in the U.S. should be changed or not has become a widely discussed and argued topic as of recent, due to recurring incidents of shootings occurring on U.S. soil by its own inhabitants. While many would be in support of the right to bear arms, including myself, I do believe that the current gun laws need to be made more restrictive than they are in their current state, for the sake of the country and the safety of its people. I’m well aware that I am not a U.S. citizen and that I have no say in what decisions are made there regarding the country’s constitution, but I feel that what I have to say is shared by many of America’s people and that it’s not only Americans that are affected by guns but also those who are visiting the country from abroad. There are many problems regarding America’s very unrestrictive gun laws at present, whether it’s the fact that there is no federal minimum age for possession of a long gun, or the fact that individuals don’t
One of the most controversial issues our nation faces today is gun control laws. This controversy has been created due to the different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution which states the right of citizens to bear arms; “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” (Cornell Law School). Anti-gun control laws believe that the amendment guarantees the right to bear any kind of firearms. On the other hand, we have does that believe that more controls laws should be implemented since the 2nd amendment was for the right of States to have an armed militia during wartime. Both sides have strong point, however, the safety of our children comes first, and a firearm means death in the wrong hands.
The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights is the right to bear arms, which gives American citizens a constitutional right to own and purchase guns. It states, "A well-regulated
According to the Second Amendment, “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.” The Second Amendment specifically states that “the right of the people to keep
PERSUASIVE SPEECH Choong Hwan Park Speech 101 Attention Getter: using the video that shows gun violence for 15 seconds. Thesis: In order to solve gun violence, only government officers such as police, firemen, or soldiers should be able to possess guns and civilians should not be able to own guns for any reason. Credibility: Since I was a little kid, I watched a lot of news that was related to gun violence in the U.S. Now that I am living in the United States, I sometimes feel that I am not safe when I take the subway or walk the streets at night.