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 amendment has caused many debates throughout the years due to the different ways in which it could be interpreted. Most federal appeals courts have said that, when read as a whole, this amendment protects only the rights of the militia to bear arms. However, on a decision made on March 8, 2007, the majority focused on the second clause, saying that the amendment protects the rights of individual people to own firearms as well. The decision was made in a federal appeals court in Washington to strike down a gun control law in the District of Columbia that made it impossible for residents to keep handguns in their homes. The court ruled that banning the right to own firearms was a violation of the Second Amendment.
It is too bad the people of the late 1700s/early 1800s did not perceive this to be a problem in the future. If they did surely they would have made their intentions much more clear. During that time period, Antifederalists had many fears regarding the new government. The part of the amendment about the militia was meant to reassure them that the new national government would not abolish state militias. It was not meant to transform into an argument over individual rights. However, if they were to see the conflict over the amendment today they would have trouble believe that individuals owning and/or carrying firearms could be a problem. They would not understand that in the present people often used guns unfairly against each other. This is why it is left to the people of today and of the future to determine our own meaning of the Second Amendment.
It is always difficult to predict the outcome of our future. What is important to us today may mean absolutely nothing to the people of tomorrow. In 2828, when our world has advanced far beyond our imaginations, a young student...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document