Running Head: RESTRICTIONS ON GUN OWNERSHIP
Are there any Legitimate Restrictions on Gun Ownership?
PHI103: Informal Logic
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution gives the citizens of America the right of the people to bear arms. This was adopted with the rest of the Bill of Rights. However, with this being said there are people that take this right to heart, and they feel they should be able to have any gun they want. There are guns that are specifically designed for military, some local or state law enforcement and are illegal for the average person to own. There are a lot of Federal and state laws that have to be met prior to anyone purchasing and therefore, owning a gun. There are safety laws that have been put in place to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, children, and the mentally handicapped as well as other irresponsible people that may have the ability to injure or kill another human being. There are also certain criteria a person will have to meet before the purchase of a gun will go through. A gun owner knows what it takes to kill and those individuals know there should be different forms of gun control measures to help prevent accidents from occurring. As the saying goes “Guns don’t kill people, people do." The prevention of accidents is just one reason for supporting gun control. Another reason to support gun control is to prevent the people already mentioned from having the ability to get a gun that can be used to injure or intimidate people. Better enforcement of the many gun laws we have in place currently should be the priority of the state and local law enforcement agencies. Commandeering someone’s gun or extremely over-the-top gun laws are not the answers to fixing the gun problems we are faced with today. Strictly enforcing current laws, we have in place now is the answer. The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote on Thursday June 26, 2008 declared for the first time that Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteed the rights of individual Americans to bear and keep arms. They stated that the ownership of a gun is a right of the individual, not intertwined with military service, and that it can be regulated in some ways, (2008, June 26) Furthermore, this ruling came out of Washington D.C; case that had a security guard sued the district for prohibiting him from keeping his handgun at his home. In D.C., it is a crime to carry an unregistered firearm, and registration of a handgun is prohibited. The rules for handguns are so strict that they regulate handguns out of existence. These rules are put in place to try and curb violence with handguns in the nation’s capital. This ruling furthermore struck down this ban on constitutional grounds, stating it flew in the face of our constitutional right to bear arms, (2008, June 26) The case in D.C. also It was also stated that the two sides in this case viewed the Founding Fathers intentions of the Amendment rights very different. For the most part the majority of the Supreme Court Justices said that this amendment protected the individual’s right to own a gun without connection with the service in a militia and to use this for a lawful purpose such as self-defense in the home. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. But it did allow for individuals to have guns for lawful purposes, such as hunting and defending themselves, he said. The majority clearly saw the individual right to own a gun, (2008, June 26) This ruling left in place many restrictions at both the federal and state levels, like the bans that were placed on felon’s right to have a gun, and the bans on sawed-off shotguns and assault weapons. Justice John Paul Stevens stated that this ruling would leave it up to future courts to really define the details...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document