Heller (“District of Colombia V. Heller”, Oyez) had major influence over the right to bear arms and the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Therefore the focus of this case was whether or not the District of Colombia’s gun laws violated the citizen’s right to bear arms and the Second Amendment. The District of Colombia’s laws in question banned handguns and required all legal firearms to be disassembled or locked, preventing them from being used for self-defense. But before the judges made their decisions they had to look at the Second Amendment and determine the meaning of it, and if the right to bear arms applied to the citizen’s. Therefore Heller and his attorneys claimed that the citizens were given the right to bear arms by the Second Amendment; they used the fact that the laws prevented citizen from protecting themselves with firearms which they claimed was protected by the Second Amendment. While The District of Colombia and its representatives and the federal trial court in Washington D.C. used the wording of the Second Amendment as evidence that the right to bear arms only applied to militias, such as the army, National Guard and law enforcement. But when the case got to the U.S Supreme Court, the judges ruled with a five to four decision that the Second Amendment is made to protect every individual’s right to bear arms not just the militias, because of this ruling it forever changed the interpretation of the…
It is the second amendment for the right to bear arms. Every different state decides if people have the right to carry a concealed weapon. Federal gun control laws also affect the implication of the states laws. People are held to gunpoint nearly every day in big cities like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles. If this happens to someone, they should have the right to defend themselves and match the power. People just need to make the right choices with that weapon. Concealed weapons should be legal so one can feel safe, and be safe when an attack approaches.…
Gun control and the Second Amendment have been in the new and at the forefront of American conversation in the last several months. The largest topic in this discussion is, what does the Second Amendment say, what does it mean, and does it still apply today. The main viewpoints of this argument really come from each group’s interpretation of the verbiage that makes up the Second Amendment. One group takes a universal human right to bear arms approach, while another group takes an approach that makes the Second Amendment a propositional statement.…
The argument that everyone has a constitutional right to bear arms is being politicized within our educational environment. To allow college students to have concealed weapons on campus will welcome in the same criminality that plagues our society. Students carrying guns on campus will increase violent crimes and subject students to injury in a confrontation or victim to a senseless killing. The potential threat that would come from allowing students to legally carry guns far outweighs the benefits of having guns on campus.…
Shootings, massacres and suicides. The united States of America has extrememly high rates of each compared to every other country in the world. Why, you may ask? It's all down to the second amendment to its constiution - the right to bear arms. Firearm regulations and laws are subtly varied in each country and though most governments are iron-fisted when it comes to guns. Nevertheless, North America is exceedingly leiniet and the majority of its population is entitled to legal firearm ownership.…
School campus’ have always been a large target for shooters and attackers. Students and teachers that have spent time to gain the trust of the government to conceal carry should also be able to holster on a campus without interruption. Many people will say having any weapons is a danger to students and any other pedestrians on campus but a law abiding citizen that has had training and known when a weapon should and shouldn't be used could be vital to saving the lives of many during a life or death situation. Shooters also knowing that this is true are a lot less likely to try and target a school knowing there is going to be resistance. Currently there are only twelve states (Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Wisconsin,…
Heller case. This case was the first one addressed in approximately seventy years that concerned the second amendment in only the second time that the “famous phrase was used: ‘the right to bear arms.’” Heller was allowed to protect himself on the job; however, he was not granted the permission to have a gun (“Supreme Court”). Heller states, “ D.C. law has it backwards: ‘I can protect federal workers, but, at the end of the day, they say,’ turn in your gun—you can’t protect your home’” (North). Heller and five others confronted the Districts Firearms Control and Regulation Act of 1975. The act consumed a strict gun control regulation that limited few from owning a personal firearm. This required all guns to be unloaded and put away after each shift. The court protected the Second Amendment of the Constitution in a five to four vote that an individual does have the right for personal protection with handguns (“Supreme…
Carrying weapons is a simple right of American citizens, and outlawing it is a violation of the constitutional rights of the people. The chance to carry a concealed firearm, makes it possible and easier for citizens defend themselves in a every way possible against all crimes.…
The first thought that comes to mind when most people think of “handguns” is death. A handgun is described as a firearm that can be held with one hand, such as a revolver or a pistol. Because of it’s size a handgun can be easily concealed and therefore one of many weapons used in violent crimes particularly within inner city communities. Will banning handguns decrease crime? Should handguns only be carried by law officials and military personnel? Handguns do not kill people; “people kill people”. In this article I will address the above questions and express why I feel handguns should not be banned.…
According to a database maintained by The Guardian newspaper, 203 out of 1,024 people killed by the U. S. police in 2015 were unarmed and the individual right to keep and bear arms does not help. By definition, the right to keep and bear arms often referred to as the right to bear arms or to have arms, the Constitution’s second amendment, allows one to possess arms for self-defense. This means anyone in America has the right to keep and bear arms. However, society is less safe when everyone has the right to carry guns. The question is who should have the right to bear arms in self-defense? The right of police officers and individuals to keep and bear arms in self-defense should be further restricted.…
Legally owned guns are often thieved and used by criminals or rarely used for protection. Between 2005 and 2010, 1.4 million handguns were stolen from U.S. dwellings during property felonies. Of the 29,618,300 violent crimes committed from 2007 to 2011, only 0.79% or 235,700 of the victims tried to defend themselves using a handgun. Less than 1% of the victims try to threat or kill the felon that committed violent crimes. Plus, of 84,495,500 property crimes committed among 2007 to 2011, no more than 0.12% or 103,000 of the victims attempted to secure themselves by using a firearm to threat or kill the…
The application of natural rights allows every citizen of the United States of America to have equal and inalienable protections from the government that created them. Although debated on where the line is drawn, Americans know that they have the Freedom of Speech, the Right to Refuse the Quartering of Soldiers, and the Right to Bear Arms. Actually the last one should go more like this; “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,” substantially different than the grotesquely abbreviated citation we are used to hearing. The amendment was designed to ensure a very specific circumstance: the people are allowed access to weapons in order to physically defend themselves against the hand of a tyrannical government.…
Heller had a very important ruling. District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.3 There are two clauses that stand out the most from this court case: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a…
All 50 states as of 2013 permitted carrying a concealed handgun in public, when Illinois became the last state to enact concealed carry legislation. Some states required gun owners to acquire permits while other have “unrestricted carry” and do not require permits. Advocates of concealed carry spoke out that criminals are less likely to attack someone if they believe them to be armed. They cite the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that protects the rights of “individuals” to own guns. It 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.” They go on to argue that most adults who are legally permitted to carry a concealed gun are the law abiding citizen and do not misuse their firearms. Opponents of concealed carry beg to differ and dispute that increased gun ownership could lead to unpremeditated gun injures and to more gun crimes. “They oppose that concealed handguns increase the changes of argument becoming lethal, and that the Second Amendment has limits and does not mention concealed carry, they go on to dispute that society would be safer with fewer guns on the streets, not more.” Members of the interest groups that are against gun control would present reason “that guns are not the issue with gun violence and that the people behind the act will find some way to commit their crimes.” John Lotts, an economist and a gun advocate says, “I think effective law enforcement has had the biggest impact on crime rates, but I think concealed carry has something to do with it. That there has been an increase in the number of people licensed to carry.” Lott goes on to say “You can deter criminality through longer sentencing, and you deter criminality by making it risker for people to commit crimes.” And one way to make it risker is to create the impression among the criminal population that law-abiding…
Guns, should they be outlawed or should outlaws only have guns? In this article “The Right to Arms” by Edward Abbey, explains that weapons have been controlled by other countries besides the United States. A peasant caught with a sword in medieval England would be strung up on a gibbet, they only members of the ruling class to bear arms. The article goes on to say if any of the peasants were to fight they were only allowed to use sickles or clubs. A private citizen known as the “Third Reich”, from Nazi Germany, if one of them had possession of a firearm their statutory penalty was that they would be hung. The Soviet Union would have their citizen beheaded if they were in possession of firearms. It was noted that ownership of firearms in the Soviet Union, are decided upon the monopolies of the state. This meant that they had control of the trade or business. With this being said some of the landowners were authorized to have firearms for the sole purpose for hunting.…