An Argumentative paper submitted to Professor M. Cotton
The interpretation of the Second Amendment The Right to bear arms | | By Dozetta M. Lewis | This | This paper is to give insight on the various Supreme Court case on the interpretation of the Second Amendment the right to Bear Arms and how it was interpreted to be fair and unfair.
The right to bear arms has always been a constitutional right Since 1791 . The Second Amendment of the Consttution of the United States of American readers . A well regulated militia , beign necessary to the Security of the free state . the Secon Amendment to the Constitution of the United states was created to protect the citizenry from its own government. There are Laws that Forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . such make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants rather to encourage than to prevent homicides,for an unmarmed man many be attacked with greater confidence than armed man.the right to bear Arms is a constitutional right , necessary to maintain a free country , and allows the common citizen to defined himself : therefore , people must contact their legislattors and urge then protect the Second Amendment. In the supreme court case United States v. Miller ET AL. 307 U.S.174 Miller was subject to two possible interpretations. One that the Second Amendment was an individual right, and that the right is only extends to weapons commonly used in militias. The Second view of miller is that the Amendment guarantees no rights to individuals at all, and the defendants lost the case as soon as it was obvious that they were not a member of the militia. The second concern about the Second Amendment was does the right of the individual to own a firearm, is against state regulations as well as federal regulation? During 1876 the Supreme court said the right if it existed was enforce able only against the federal government , but...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document