2nd 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."
Does the 2nd Amendment give all Americans the right to bear arms? To what extent can the government limit this without "infringing" on teh Second Amendment?
- Can the government place limitations or restrictions on gun ownership? Under what circumstances?
- What events in our recent past have fueled the gun debate? School shootings? Home invasions?
- What are the arguments for and against limiting the right to bear arms?
"It's precedent-setting. It's the first time the Supreme Court has commented on this in decades," said Sheri Anne MacNeil, 30, of the District, who is with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "It's monumental."
On the other side of the gun ban issue was Don Pollock, 67, a retired military special operations officer from Bowie. "This is the big one. The court finally gets to review the terrible [gun] laws of the last 70-something years."
D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in CourtJustices' Decision May Set Precedent In Interpreting the 2nd Amendment
DC v. Heller
What do the statistics say? Below are educational, government and advocacy sites that list statistical information about firearms and related issues including crime.
http://www.vpc.org/
http://www.nra.org/home.aspx
MOVIES (on Google Video) THAT ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF GUNS IN AMERICA - OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS
Bowling for Columbine (R)
Michael and Me (NR)
Assignment (Due date TBA)
You are one of the 9 Supreme Court Justices hearing the District of Columbia v. Heller. Based on your investigation of the facts, how are you going to rule and why? Are you going to take a narrow or strict constructionist view, or more broadly interpret the Constitution in stating your opinion? Draft an opinion (1 page) that clearly states your opinion based on your constitutional views, and including any other factors that influence your position.
THE RULING BY THE COURT
42 comments:
I feel that the right to bear arms should be given to people but with restrictions. for example, i feel a person should be able to only purchase certain fire arms such as rifles and hand guns. I think people should not be able to purchase high power machine guns or rocket launchers etc.. some events of the past have threatened this right such as columbine and the shootings at Virginia tech, but i think that people should be able to keep fire arms and have the right to defend themselves if need be.
I believe that the government should put even more restrictions on gun ownership than what they currently have in order to keep our country safer. The 2nd Amendment says that all people have the right to own guns for necessary security of our free state, but that amendment was written a few hundred years ago. I think that the government should be less lenient about who they allow to have guns and how a person is able to get one. The school shootings in Cleveland Ohio, Columbine, Oakland California, and Virginia Tech are a perfect example of why our government needs to implement more laws about gun ownership. Gun ownership is such a big debate because some people believe that the government does not have the right to infringe on the 2nd Amendment, while others believe in order to keep our country safer we need to crack down on who has a gun and who we allow to own guns.
If I were a judge, I would rule in favor of DC and allow them to keep the gun regulations. I do not believe the provisions violate the 2nd Amendment in two ways. Firstly, I agree that the Second Amendment emphasizes the bearing of arms for militia. While the text does say “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” it uses in the context of keeping a well-regulated militia to protect the free state. I doubt that the people who are against DC’s regulations are keeping guns for the purpose of protecting our nation. Secondly, I think forcing people to register for a gun license and keeping guns in a safe form and location is not infringing people’s rights. When someone goes through this process to get a gun, they are still able to “keep” and “bear arms,” as the constitution allows them to.
In regards to the use of gun control laws to limit crime, I think that gun restrictions will lower crime rates. In ten states, there are more deaths caused by guns than by vehicular accidents, which should clearly be a sign that guns should be controlled. There are tons of regulatory laws for motor vehicle safety, so there should be some for guns too. Some people criticize gun control to prevent crime because they claim that it is done because our police force is inept to prevent violent crime. I think this remark is stupid and lacks critical thinking. Gun control will decrease crime rates, and is a better option than hiring more police because it is not only easier, but more financially realistic. Even if we were to hire more policemen, it wouldn’t greatly affect the number of deaths caused by guns. School shootings, I believe, will decrease from DC’s laws. Since it requires guns to be locked up and disassembled, it will be harder for a student to obtain a functioning gun without going talking to a few more people, which could be the difference between people’s lives.
In general, I am for gun control laws. I am, however, open to more statistics and unbiased studies. I feel that gun control laws are like economic regulatory laws – it is hard to tell whether it is better to highly regulate industry to benefit consumers or if it is better to be more laissez faire. I don’t see gun control laws as a violation to people’s Second Amendment, but I think they could be adjusted to be either more or less restrictive, depending on real data.
I believe that the government should allow anyone the right to bear arms but with restrictions placed on these privileges. Anyone should be given the opportunity but if they break the rules then arms should be taken away for good from said person. With this in place it allows the people in the country the freedom they deserve while protecting the country. Some of the original restrictions and tests should be that each person that wants to own a gun should be of a certain age, must receive the proper arms training, must take a mental test to make sure they are stable and they should only be able to use and carry them in designated areas. As far as the black market goes there is nothing the government can do to completely stop it and things like shootings will happen and always have happened. They must be dealt with properly through evacuation procedures at colleges, office buildings, etc.
In my opinion, I believe that the people should have the right to the second amendment which is the right to bear arms. But at the same time, there needs to be restrictions. Bearing arms should not be something that you should just have the immediate right to; it should be a privilege. To be able to have guns with you, I believe that you need to be a certain age in order to be able to purchase and/or own a gun. Also I believe that you need to have a certain amount of arms training and that you should have a license in order to obtain your gun. Most importantly, you should have some documents of stating that you are mentally stable other wise you are prohibited from purchasing a weapon. That in my opinion is the most important restriction when it comes to having a weapon. There have been numerous shootings in the past from people who have bought weapons and were mentally disable such as the guy from the Virginia Tech Shootings years ago. But at the same time, the black market sells weapons illegally and they'll give it to anyone as long as they have the money to buy the weapons. The second amendment on the constitution is not expressed well enough. Bearing arms should not be an immediate right. If it were, then the United States would become a far more dangerous place to be living in.
According to the Constitution's second amendment, Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. This being said, restrictions must be placed on who can own firearms and what types of firearms can be owned in the interest of public safety. For this reason, I would rule in favor of DC and the gun regulations.
First of all, it is necessary to observe the context in which the second amendment was written. During this time, America had no standing military and relied on the militia, which was comprised of all able bodied male citizens. Therefore the second amendment was originally put into place to ensure that their only fighting force was armed. Today however, with the overwhelming majority of people being unassociated with any fighting force, the second amendment is open for revaluation.
Often times, civilians opt to own firearms for the use of personal protection. Here is where regulations must be put in place. In the event that a civilian must use a firearm, it would most likely be against a one to a few assailants, not an entire war zone. Hence, explosives, rocket launchers, high power machine guns, and weapons of the sort should be banned from civilian use. The only firearms that should be available for sale are handguns, rifles.
Additionally, the types of people that can purchase the available firearms must be carefully monitored. In the nation's past experiences, with the shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech and other gun related crimes, there are people out there with bad intentions. Therefore, background checks should be performed on gun buyers before sales can be made. Gun owners should have a relatively clean record with no major infringements of the law and must be in a stable state of mind. These regulations in the end maintain the provisions of the second amendment while still protecting every American's right to life.
Over the years the United States have changed drastically. Everything has changed, from foreign policy to economics and technology. Therefore, there is no way that the constitution can be expected to be interpreted the same was as it was when it was conceived. A more wide view of the constitution is necessary.
While viewing the second Amendment, we can clearly read that "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." In the modern age, we ask ourselves the legitimacy of a strict interpretation right with the primary clause that states "A well regulated militia...", we do not have a militia, we have the national guard. Also, back during the drafting of the constitution there were no automatic weapons and explosives and rocket propelled weapons. They had weapons that were necessary to their own security; they had just enough to protect themselves in a situation where deadly force was necessary.
Times have changed, but we still don't need rocket launchers or fully automatic weapons to protect our family while in our homes. People should have the right to be able to protect themselves with deadly force if necessary, but they should know what is necessary to defend themselves. In saying this, DC's bans and restrictions on firearms is unreasonable. Handguns are the most conservative of firearms and if anything they should be encouraged rather than discouraged. If one were to break the law for a handgun then what would stop them from breaking a law for an AK-47? In banning and restricting handguns we are only asking for more criminal activity. As far as having weapons trigger locked or disassembled, what use are they in a dire situation if they are a pile of parts? They aren't any use. Weapons need to be able to be accessed in a time of need; people should be able to defend themselves.
As a member of the Supreme Court, I support Heller over the District of Colombia. Although firearms are dangerous and pose a potential threat, if properly educated and guarded in a proper manner, firearms are a basic protection and security for the people of the United States of America.
The topic of debate that has been vigorously discussed lately is the Second Amendment right to own and bear arms. This 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." Since this has been written, our country has come a long way and experienced plenty of gun ownership obstacles along our journey. Although a handful of unfortunate events have occurred regarding firearms, I support Hellen over the District of Colombia in his argument.
During the time the second amendment was written, it was the duty of Militias to serve and protect their fellow civilians. Since then, a national guard has been put in place and much stricter law enforcement has been established. With this being said, the majority of gun ownership cases in the present day are no longer for the purpose of a regulated militia but instead for personal protection. Because of this, i believe gun ownership should be restricted to firepower that is necessary and sufficient for civilian defense. This means a ban of explosive weaponry and automatic weapons. However, with the rise in home invasions and other shooting, i support the keeping and bearing of controlled firepower. For this cause, handguns and rifles are the most suitable and should be sold to all who desire protection and qualify for the safety regulations. This is why i argue against the bans and restrictions of firearms implemented by DC.
Furthermore, i disagree with the safety regulations to keep ones firearm disassembled, locked, and unloaded. This regulation interferes with a gun owners safety and access of the weapon which could mean life or death in the situation the gun was purchased for. This safety precaution guarantees that the use of the weapon would have to be premeditated and thought out in order for the weapon to be useful, which is the case in most of these unfortunate firearm events. Overall, disassembling and keeping ones weapon unloaded and uneasily accessible only inhibits ones ability to protect themselves and does nothing to prevent the premeditated event of murder or shootings.
In conclusion, I agree with the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. With the proper regulation and safety precautions to ensure that the firearm is placed in a responsible person's hands, handguns and rifles ensure private protection and can help a family rest easy at night. Each and every American has the right to keep themselves safe in the most desperate of situations. Because of this, I support gun ownership.
I vote yes on the Second Amendment, which protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self- defense within the home. Everyone should be given this right without being infringed. The only problem was the constitution was written in 1787. Guns then may have sounded reasonable to keep in the house but now with new technology some precautions must be taken. The guns today are far more advanced and powerful. All gun owners should have a license to bear arms. This is in no way infringing someone; if you have a clean background you should be ok with registering a gun. A weapon should be concealed and locked at all times when not in use. If a person cannot follow this rule and imposes any threat or discomfort to the public they should no longer deserve the right to bear arms.
Laws like the Second are what make America so great. Everyone is free to have a sense of protection. The right to bear arms should never be taken away from the people but may have a need for some regulations. If guns were taken away from the people, this country would seem week and vulnerable. No war is fought on American soil because with the Second Amendment, if another country were to try and invade almost every home they walked into could have someone waiting behind the door with a gun ready to fire.
It is a good thing that the people of the United States can have a gun and a range to shoot at. It’s a tradition in many families for the parents to teach their children how to handle a gun. Everyone should be informed what to do and what not to do with a weapon. Learning how to shoot at a young age is why our soldiers are the best in the world.
The "gun debate" has been an issue for a while. The reason being is because the second amendment is a little broad. The second amendment states that, "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." When this was written, gun ownership was meant for a Militia. Gun owners argue that it does in fact acknowledge "the people" in the second amendment. Laws and restrictions are made to keep people safe. So why would anyone disagree to gun restrictions? Some gun owners may explain that the reason why they don't like these restrictions is because most of them probably own a gun in the first place to protect themselves. The restrictions may waste time in a time of desperation. However, In the DC v. Heller case, Chief Justice Roberts asked Mr. Dellinger how long it takes to remove a trigger lock and load a gun. Mr. Dellinger said that, "It took me three seconds...I'm not kidding...It's not that hard to do it...". Three seconds is not that long.
Also, there have been many tragic gun incidents/attacks in schools. A few examples of this are: Columbine High School in Colorado, Virginia Tech University, and in Cleveland Ohio. Schools have higher security systems and rules because of these events that happen all over the world. Gun restrictions could help decrease the number of incidents schools have dealing with kids bringing guns into school. Some handguns even have a three digit code you have to enter in order for you to be able to use the use. If the gun is locked, this could prevent kids from being able to use them. The amount of accidental gun fire and suicides by kids could be decreased because the gun would be unloaded or locked. These gun restrictions are just for protection.
I believe that gun control is a very good idea. If i were one of the 9 supreme court justices, I would vote in favor of DC's gun control law. Guns kill people every day. In fact, a violence policy center gave an analysis which showed that in ten states in 2009, the amount of deaths caused by guns were larger than those caused by motor vehicles. That is extremely alarming. I do not believe that these restrictions violate gun owners 2nd amendment because they still have a right to own a gun. These restrictions are for the safety of the owner and anyone else really. With these restrictions, i firmly believe that the number of deaths connected to guns will decrease. Some may say that it's a hassle, however, those few seconds could save a persons life. Whether or not gun owners are happy about these restrictions, it's the right thing to do.
Yes, the second amendment does give all Americans the right to bear arms, but it does need limitations. Restrictions must be placed on who can own firearms and what types of firearms can be owned in the interest of public safety. For this reason, I would rule in favor of DC and the gun regulations. I think forcing people to register for a gun license and keeping guns in a safe location is not infringing people’s rights.
I would rule in favor of DC. In states like New York, these gun restrictions have decreased crime significantly. In seeing this outcome, I can only hope that this could be the same outcome with DC.Gun owners should have a relatively clean record with no major infringements of the law and must be in a stable state of mind. These regulations in the end maintain the provisions of the second amendment while still protecting every American's right to life.
There are two main points of view, For and Against. For gun control seems too extreme to me, but no gun control seems out of control. The government does have the right to limit guns, but does not have a right to take them away from the people. There are many different views on this subject. But i do believe that gun control in DC would be beneficial for the U.S.
I would rule against the majority and say that the federal government has the right to put restrictions and limitations on civilian gun control. In my opinion, it is clear that the way the Constitution was written it applies the right to bear arms to organized government militias and not to civilians. While this may not have been a concern while the Constitution was written, the wording of the Second Amendment has not changed to cover civilians and still only applies to government supported militias.
The federal government would not end the right for civilians to own guns, we would simply put more sufficient safety regulations into place to prevent any acts of violence. It is clear from past events like the Columbine shooting, that the country's current gun regulations are not strong enough and that they need to be fixed. I'm not talking about ending civilain gun ownership, just making it safer for people to own guns.
In the specific case of DC v. Heller I am ruling against the majority because the District of Colombia is just that, a district. DC is not a state and therefore the Constitution does not apply to it. DC is under the jurisdiciton of the federal government only, and therefore is governed differently from the rest of the country. In DC, the federal government can decide what is right even if it is not part of the Constitution.
All in all the government should have the right to place regulations, restrictions, and limitations on civilian gun ownership in the District of Colombia. These regulations will still allow for civilians to own guns but they will keep the people safer and prevent shootings. Because DC is not a state, I feel that the Second Amendment should not apply in this case, and it should be left to the government to decide.
The second amendment does give all Americans the right to bear arms. I agree with this because I believe that everyone should have the right to this amendment without being infringed. Guns today are very advanced and can be highly dangerous, although they can be used as protection and security. All gun owners should have to have a license for having a fire arm. When you register for a license they should check your background and whether or not the person has had a criminal record. Everyone should have a fair chance at owning a gun, unless they do have a criminal record or act in any kind of violence when having ownership of a gun. If a person discomforts the environment surrounding them, they should have their gun taken away. I believe that the right to bear arms is a use of protection for people in their homes, it makes them feel safe. There have been a lot of situations with school shootings and the crime rate is increasing although I think controlled firearms are necessary.
The second amendment clearly states that "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." In this case, I agree with Hellen over the District of Colombia. When this amendment was written, the Militias were supposed to protect and provide for the civilians. I believe that it does not matter if it is loaded or not. If the gun is locked up, it makes it harder to protect the person’s life in a quick, dangerous situation therefore I disagree with having the firearms locked up.
If there are safety precautions along with registration and regulations that come along with the firearm, I agree the second amendment right to bear arms. The gun should be in a safe home to assure the safety and protection of that family.
The second amendment does give all Americans the right to bear arms. However, I think that the government needs to have some sort of control on gun ownership. I believe that if a person is a convicted felon, no matter what the charge, he/she should no longer have the right to have a gun in his/her house. Also, I think that if a person is declared mentally insane or participates in any sort of counseling, he/she should not have the right to own a gun. The Virginia Tech shooting is a good example of why this should be limited. The bottom line is that I think anyone should have the right to bear arms since it was originally in the Constitution and anybody has the right to protect themselves. However, I also believe that people who are unfit to carry guns should have their second amendment right taken away.
I believe that the 2ed amendment does in fact give Americans the right to bear arms. The constitution does not state that the 2ed amendment applies only to militias as many people are saying. To say that one may only own a gun if he/she is in a state regulated militia would be denying American citizens their basic rights. The right to protect yourself should not be one that is taken away from you, and many people do, in fact, use guns as a means of protection.
Many people who keep guns in there home do so for protection. They want to be able to defend themselves should someone come into their house and threaten their family. By saying all guns must be unloaded and dismantled that would lead to some arguments. On one hand, any younger person in the house would be safe from accidently stumbling across this "toy" and harming themselves with a truly deadly weapon. On the other, the time that it takes to put back together and load a gun might be the difference between life and death.
While I do think it is unreasonable for the government to restrict ownership to citizens who have never broken the law and who have never gone against our country, I do believe that some people should not be allowed to own guns. Those with violent history, history of crime or treason, and those with unstable mental conditions who may use these weapons to harm themselves or others, should not be allowed to purchase guns. Therefore I believe a background check on all those purchasing guns does not infringe on the 2ed amendment but rather is a precautionary step to keeping as many people in our country as safe as possible.
Also those under a certain age should not be allowed to attain guns. For example, those still in high school. High school is hell, there is always someone talking about you, and there's always people you thought you could trust that you really can't. However, some people have it much worse than others, and the stress and misery of the experiance can lead them to do drastic things. These are preventable things such as suicide and school shootings. By limiting gun ownership rights to "out of high school" we can hopefully cut down the suicide rate and eliminate school shootings entirely.
Finally I would rule in favor of Heller for this case. Saying all guns must be unloaded and dismantled takes away basic 2ed amendment rights.
I think the second amendment should apply to everyone and i think that we should let people have firearms with restrictions. I feel that people should be able to have them in their homes but not be able to carry them in public places such as schools or banks etc.. I think more firearms may keep crime down. for example, their was a town in Texas that made everyone keep a gun in their homes and there was no crime. people respected each others ability to protect themselves. I think there needs to be restrictions on what types of firearms we should be able to keep. I feel that an ordinary citizen shouldn't be able to purchase high power weapons such as rocket launchers and high powered machine guns. rifles and handguns should be legal to have and i think the second amendment allows that. I also think that guns are a part of American history. Guns have been used to protect our nation for century's and they still do. people need to teach the younger generations about guns and show them how to respect them.
If I was a member of the Supreme Court deciding this case, I would most likely not take a strict constructionist view, but take a more broadly interpreted view. The constitution was drafted nearly 250 years ago, and while some of it may be timeless, such as a man's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, other things, are not. Slavery, for example, is not outlawed in our constitution, and was not until nearly 100 years after its drafting. The constitution, while being a brilliant piece of work for its time, could not anticipate everything that would happen, and so is not always relevant nowadays. Gun ownership is one of these things.
Back in the 1700's, gun ownership wasn't like gun ownership today. A larger part of the population was in the militia, with no federal army to speak of. A militia was necessary for us to defend ourselves as we had just gained independence from Britain. Some people also most likely used guns for hunting game, which they would use for sustenance. In addition, guns back then were not particularly powerful, nor accurate. Nowadays, there are no more state militias. The number of people who actually hunt because they need the food is nonexistant. Guns have become exponentially more powerful. A gunner nowadays could plausible mow down a hundred people, whereas a gunner from 1700 would be hard pressed to kill more than a couple of people, seeing as their guns had extremely long reload times.
Taking this all into account, as a Supreme Court Justice, I would rule in favor of D.C. Gun bans make everyone safer in general. Instead of giving anyone the right to simply carry around a gun, law enforcement would be able to be proactive, arresting anyone with a gun on sight. Gun crimes are far too prevalent, even outpacing motor deaths in 10 states in 2009. Guns are simply something we do not need in our society. Even though they can be used for protection, more often than not, we hear of them being used to murder others. Even those with good intentions, there have been many stories of gun accidents with unnecessary deaths. Therefore, I would interpret the law to refer only to militia, rendering the Second Amendment not applicable to the regular population.
The topic of the Second Amendment has been ignored for such a long period of time that you would think it’s not this big of an issue. When in reality a large number of people have been killed because others have been protected under this law. The amendment states that all citizens have the right to carry a weapon and that law may not be violated, but some people believe that because of the way it is worded, it is only in place to protect the “well regulated militia”. I believe this is what causes a great amount of controversy on the topic.
In the case of DC vs. Heller, I would most certainly side with DC. They were not taking away any persons right to carry a firearm but simply regulating it to make a safer environment for the people who do not carry weapons. Even though I think the Second Amendment protects private gun owners, I do not think DC changed that. I also think that the government may interpret it differently and either way should be able to make additions onto this amendment especially if they are making it to allow for more safety.
There have been quite a few instances in the past that could cause the government to rethink the ideas behind the Second Amendment, including numerous school shootings or killings due to private citizens being allowed to carry a gun. The number of gun related deaths is even higher than the deaths of motor vehicle accidents, and it’s safe to say a majority of the gun related deaths were not accidents. Cars are being made safer so fewer deaths occur yet only once in the past seventy years has someone done something to make gun laws safer.
As a Supreme Court Justice hearing the District of Columbia vs. Heller case, I would have to rule in favor of Heller, although I personally believe that there should be stricter laws regarding gun ownership. The legislators of the District of Columbia cannot place such restrictions on private gun owners that would require them to keep all legal firearms unloaded and disassembled or trigger locked. By putting these restrictions in place, they are limiting the guaranteed right to bear arms that appears in the second amendment. This is a right granted to citizens through the Constitution, which is the foundation of this country. All laws and decisions made by state legislators should reflect the messages of this antique document, and I do believe that the Constitution should be a lasting example of how to run this country.
Interpretations stating that the District of Columbia is not an actual state and is therefore not entirely protected by the Constitution is an extremely weak argument against Heller. As a part of the United States of America, the District of Columbia is, as it should be, covered by the Constitution. Individuals who choose to reside there have the same rights as those who desire to live anywhere else in the country. In most states, the gun laws are not as strict and do not enforce the majority of the previously mentioned requirements for gun owners. Although I do not personally believe that gun ownership laws should be as relaxed as they are, I also believe that what is stated in the Constitution should be the final word that legislators cannot tamper with.
If our government as a unit can settle on gun law reforms that will apply to every part of this country to keep each citizen safe, then that would be something to consider. However, I do not agree with individual areas making their own interpretations of the Constitution which founded this country's ideals and morals and skewing them to fit the opinions of small percentages of the population.
Gun laws have been argued about for a long time now in many different places all over the world. In the case of DC v. Heller, private gun owners argued that their 2nd Amendment rights were infringed upon. Personally, I would vote with Heller against the District of Columbia.
In the 2nd Amendment it states that “well-regulated militia” is allowed to bear arms. Many people in the world of today who own guns are almost guaranteed to not own that gun for use in a militia. Granted some of these people own guns for unlawful reasons, but there is a huge number of regular citizens that keep a firearm in the house for personal protection. There has been many home invasions and instances within homes where the use of a firearm could have saved innocent lives. If guns are only permitted to people in militias, there is no opportunity to purchase a firearm to keep in the home.
Regarding the safety precautions placed on gun ownership, I do not believe that these laws are useful in any way. If guns had to be disassembled, unloaded, and locked then it would take a very long time to put the gun back together in urgent, life-threatening situations. This law is potentially taking lives. Even if that law saves lives, no law should have any part in the death of innocent citizens. Because of this I believe that safety precautions such as these should be reconsidered and rewritten.
In conclusions, I support gun ownership because I do not want to hear about another home invasion where an entire family was killed because they were defenseless against an armed man. With guns that are legally and safely obtained through registration, average Americans have the ability to protect and preserve their lives and the lives of others. If this isn’t an American idea, then the America that I know and love is not what it is told to be. Freedom is key to our society and this freedom must be upheld and not infringed upon.
If I were one of the 9 Supreme Court Justices, I would judge this case in favor of D.C's policy. The 2nd Amendment states that the right of people to bear arms shall not be infringed. But interpreting statement in 2nd Amendment as it is might cause trouble. If anyone is allowed to have the gun anytime and use whenever they feel like, tons of crime will be inevitable. In order to prevent this kind of problem from happening, reasonable limitation has to be put in absorbing constitution. Controversy was brought out because the context of the 2nd Amendment is applied to militia groups not private owners. Even this controversy is hot tempered and unlikely to be ceased, D.C's policy should be kept. Militia group has significant purpose of protecting nation. Militia group will not be able to work in efficient way unless the 2nd Amendment is not valid for them and this attributes to putting many people on risk. As mentioned beggining part, high crime rate will occur if D.C policy is abused. For example, 2009 Analysis Shows indicated that gun deaths exceeded motor vehicle deaths in 10 states. This statistic demonstrates that the danger of fire arms is never disregardable. Therefore, laws that have something to do with usage of gun should be careful for prevention of further crime. Thus, I would go for D.C's view which is trying to guarantee safety of American.
Although the second amendment is relatively clear in what it states about not infringing on the citizen's right now keep and bear arms, I think it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The constitution was written hundreds of years ago, when the citizens wanted guns to protect themselves from the government. Now that guns are being used in school shootings, robberies almost daily, and domestic violence, it's necessary that more restrictions are put in place. Although it is the government's job to guarantee citizens the right to bear arms, I believe that the government's responsibility to protect the life, liberty, and happiness of every citizen is more important. In our own community we have seen how gun crimes can shake a town and cause grief that knows no bounds. I think it is more important to protect the lives of innocents who could be victims to violent crimes than to maintain such loose gun control as part of the second amendment. For this reason, I would have dissented and voted to enforce the stricter control over guns in DC.
I feel that in general, the constitution does have some flexibility. Times are not the same now as they were when the document was written, and new factors need to be taken into account and updated. For example, although contraception is a hugely controversial topic in today's day and age, when the Bill of Rights was written, quatering soldiers in houses was a much hotter topic. The founding fathers knew a lot, but they could not have predicted the future of the country to this extent, and for this reason it's necessary for the supreme court judges to continuously review the rights and what they mean nowadays.
The debate for gun rights has being going on for quite sometime now, and I believe that people should have the right to bear arms. The pro gun rights side states that guns are used in positive ways such as protection and hunting. While the against gun rights side states that guns are dangerous and kill people. I believe that guns do not kill people, but actually people kill people. A gun is harmless until it is used by another human being. Certain people should not be in possesion of a gun at all, which is the one regulation that needs to be enforced more. People with mental disabilities are clearly not responsible enough for guns. If you look at the numerous shootings at Virignia Tech, the arizona politicians, etc., the shooters behind the guns here were very uncapeable of owning a weapon. I believe that guns should be owned freely by people, but the regulations and processes need to be updated for the better.
As much as I admire people who believe in preservation and how things should remain as they should, sometimes it’s unreasonable to follow the same rules from 200 years ago when the world is constantly changing. I believe that conformity is necessary in order to keep the same ideals, but have them manipulated just so they can apply to the kind of society we now live in.
If we are to strictly follow the Constitution as it clearly states regarding the Second Amendment, then the mentally ill and minors could have access to lethal weapons because it isn't too specific regarding who or who can't own them. It is dangerous as evidently seen in the incidents of school shootings such as in Columbine and Virgina Tech.
The Constitution, however, also clearly says that it is only for the purposes of belonging to a militia that the Second Amendment applies to. Because of this, I agree with DC's argument in the DC vs. Heller trial that the rules should not ultimately apply because the District of Columbia is in fact not a legitimate state but a federal enclave and that their laws regarding gun control do not infringe the right to bear arms but merely regulate gun ownership by requiring licenses to carry guns around.
However, I don't agree that private gun-owners should have their guns unloaded and disassembled because it loses the purpose for their owning one. Although there are people who use these weapons unlawfully, a great number have them in the home for security purposes. DC is a place full of politicians, government officials, and other important government headquarters, and can therefore be a potential target for outlaws and rebels. It is most important that citizens who reside in DC arm themselves in the possibility of danger.
In conclusion, I will have to side with Heller in this case. Nevertheless, it is still significant that the government be stricter and nothing but lenient about the issue of gun-ownership. The advantage may be personal protection but the disadvantage may also risk other people's safety. Indeed, it must be taken very seriously.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution has been, and always will be, a controversial topic amongst the American people throughout the years. There are countless views on the issue, and no matter what , there will always be dissenting opinions in regards to the right to bear arms. That being said, if I were one of the justices on the Supreme Court after hearing the case of the District of Colombia v. Heller, I would rule in favor of Heller and protecting the private right to bear arms.
I understand the reasoning behind banning private gun use in Washington DC, especially due to the extremely high crime statistics in the city and the necessity for security in our nations capital; however, I believe that in America, a country built on the ideals of personal rights and independence, the rights of the people to bear arms cannot be infringed upon in such a manner. Though there should be limitations set on gun ownership under certain circumstances, the Constitution and the rights of the people must be upheld thoroughly. It is the right of the citizens of the United States to possess a gun in order to protect themselves or their families in self-defense. This right, along with all other rights provided by the Constitution, is important to our society and our freedom. In addition, I do not think that the safety precautions supported by the District of Columbia should be enacted. In a real life emergency situation when a gun would be necessary for self-defense in a home, it would be extremely inefficient to have to reassemble, load, and unlock a gun in such an urgent circumstance. The Second Amendment was created for defense in potentially life-threatening situations, but with this rule is in place, the Amendment is essentially useless in such an affair.
That being said, it is equally important to place the proper restrictions on the Second Amendment regarded who exactly is eligible to bear arms. For example, in many cases of shootings in recent years, the shooters have had a history of mental or physiological issues, as well as a background in criminal behavior, yet they still were granted access to deadly weapons. The government must do a better job of regulating who has possesion of arms in order yo ensure the highest level of safety in America, while protecting our individual rights.
The second amendment to the constitution protects the right of citizens to bear arms. According to what is written in the constitution, I would have to vote against any legislation for banning weapons as a justice of the supreme court. This means that I would disagree with any law that would limit, restrict, or make illegal, any type of firearm. As a justice of the supreme court for the D.C. vs. Heller case, I would have to vote in favor of Heller because the legislation that D.C. was implementing is unconstitutional.
The constitution states that “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 does not mean that the people have to be in the Militia, but that they have to be people. The amendment states that it is the right of the people to bear arms. It continues to say that this right shall not be infringed. This means that nothing should affect this right of the people. This right should not even be infringed upon. This means that no restriction or limitation to the ownership of firearms can be made because that includes an infringement on the right.
The second amendment of the constitution protects citizens' right to bear arms. This means that the government should not put any restrictions on the owning of firearms. The amendment states that the government cannot infringe on citizens' right to bear arms. This means that any type of limitation or restriction cannot be allowed because that would mean infringing on the right. There are a few arguments that people make as reasons that guns should be restricted. These include school shootings an home invasions. People say that guns should be restricted in order to prevent things like this from happening. There are people who say that we can all agree that weapons like the grenade launcher can be restricted. I don't feel this way. Even that would infringe on the right to bear arms. I do think that those buying that type of weapon should be watched, but these are not the weapons that are being used in these violent events. I know that violence is a problem, but I also know that the government cannot control the ownership of weapons because of what the constitution says.
The role of the supreme court is to rule according to what the constitution says, and the constitution says that people have the right to bear arms. In the case, I would have to support Heller because of what the constitution says. No type of legislation can be passed to limit gun ownership because of what the constitution says. It is not a matter of interpretation but is a matter of reading what is written in the constitution. The people of the country have the right to own guns and the government cannot take away that right or limit it by any means.
As a justice of the Supreme Court, I would see the constructionist view of the Constitution as absolutist and more than a little shortsighted. The Constitution, drafted well over 200 years ago as the Articles of Confederation crumbled, is a document full of truths and rights that should never be infringed upon. A representative Congress is essential for enacting laws that represent the will of the people. The President should not be able to singlehandedly declare war without the approval of legislature. Many tenets of the document are tenacious, and will never need clarification as to what rights they are protecting. However, the Constitution is entrusted with the governance of a living, changing nation, and therefore more be able to do the same. In no way could it possibly account for the mass of changes that have taken place in society since its signing. We have advanced as a culture, and as a nation. Two centuries ago, the concept of nationalized healthcare would have been a logistical impossibility, and ethics in research were unnecessary as essentially no scientific research was done. Therefore, the Constitution has to be addressed with an eye towards how the world has changed since its enactment. In no argument is this more imperative than that of gun rights. The text of the Second Amendment reads “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.” Although the courts have agreed that the first clause, concerning the keeping of a militia, was more for clarification than justification, the words lend important context. When the founding fathers drafted the Bill of Rights, the easiest method of defending the nation was individual militias, which could mobilize and act in the time it took for a national army to move to the area of combat. These men fought with muzzle-loading muskets, versatile (if slow) guns that could be used for hunting, defense, and other purposes.
This is not the world we live in today. Weapons ranging from handguns to automatic “machine guns” to full-blown grenade launchers are available to various groups of people. Some of these weapons are used for practical purposes, such as hunting and agriculture. Many more are kept for sport shooting. However, there are also a significant number of firearms that are used for criminal purposes. Some states have even seen gun deaths outpace motor vehicle deaths, as shown by a report by the Violence Policy Center. The rights guaranteed by the Constitution all carry a silent, imperative disclaimer: that your rights shall not be infringed upon UP TO THE POINT at which they impair the rights of others to have security, peace of mind, and express themselves freely. Guns violate this pact on many occasions; their usage in violent crimes and robberies have robbed many people of their lives and property, and go so far as to create a culture of violence and micro-arms races in some communities. I am not an advocate of total, federal outlawing of guns; there are many citizens of the United States who use guns for completely legitimate purposes. However, I do believe that states and federal jurisdiction should have the right to ban guns when they have been shown to cause more harm than good. This is precisely what happened in Washington D.C. As a community, D.C. lawmakers realized that guns were unnecessary. This is not a place dependent upon hunting or agriculture for sustenance; instead, firearms were being used to kill and rob people. Therefore, they were infringing upon the rights of the people to safety, and could justifiably be banned. Such a thought process is logical and for the better of the community. Thus, I would without a doubt have upheld the decision of the D.C. government in outlawing guns within the district.
I believe that the right to bear arms is a very broad statement and has to be interpreted not just assumed that everyone should be allowed to own a gun. I think that one restriction that the government should be allowed to place on gun ownership is the type of guns that people own. For example if our national army is trained and equipped with a specific type of weapon a regular citizen shouldn’t be able to go out and just buy one. This could severely weaken our army if their weaponry and be challenged so easily. In addition to the type of guns that people can own the people owning the guns should also be monitored. Violent felons or people with a long history of violence should not be allowed to obtain a fire arm. This will keep people safe and crime on the streets. Lastly in times of unrest or emergencies the number of firearms distributed should be greatly decreased except for certified personnel. During times of crisis people become desperate and willing to do harsh things if it means the survival of them and their families.
I think that the gun debate has been primarily fueled by school shootings. Although home invasions are horrible preventing every single person from obtaining a firearm is a fight that cannot be won. But many school shootings happen in high schools and the ability for a child to obtain a firearm is far too simple and far too hazardous for the safety of them and their fellow classmates. The Columbine school shootings happened a little over 10 years ago after this tragedy the realization that this could happen in other places scared people to the point where the safety of students in school was now jeopardized. This fueled the debate of how to once again have that safety for all students therefore prompting stricter gun laws preventing the ease of obtaining firearms.
If I were the one deciding on this case I would rule in favor of DC allowing them to keep their gun restrictions. Although the constitution may allow the right for people to bear arms it doesn’t mean that the guns can be used to harm others. People that the right to three things as a citizen life, liberty, and property. With all the guns, people are losing their lives for a fight that can never be won. The job of the supreme court is to interpret the constitution and if one part conflicts with another the interpretation is left up to the justices therefore although the 2nd amendment guarantees the right the bear arms the justices can allow for some kind of restrictions so that the 2nd amendment doesn’t contradict with the idea of people having the right to life when they are citizens.
I believe that the right to bear arms is a very broad statement and has to be interpreted not just assumed that everyone should be allowed to own a gun. I think that one restriction that the government should be allowed to place on gun ownership is the type of guns that people own. For example if our national army is trained and equipped with a specific type of weapon a regular citizen shouldn’t be able to go out and just buy one. This could severely weaken our army if their weaponry and be challenged so easily. In addition to the type of guns that people can own the people owning the guns should also be monitored. Violent felons or people with a long history of violence should not be allowed to obtain a fire arm. This will keep people safe and crime on the streets. Lastly in times of unrest or emergencies the number of firearms distributed should be greatly decreased except for certified personnel. During times of crisis people become desperate and willing to do harsh things if it means the survival of them and their families.
I think that the gun debate has been primarily fueled by school shootings. Although home invasions are horrible preventing every single person from obtaining a firearm is a fight that cannot be won. But many school shootings happen in high schools and the ability for a child to obtain a firearm is far too simple and far too hazardous for the safety of them and their fellow classmates. The Columbine school shootings happened a little over 10 years ago after this tragedy the realization that this could happen in other places scared people to the point where the safety of students in school was now jeopardized. This fueled the debate of how to once again have that safety for all students therefore prompting stricter gun laws preventing the ease of obtaining firearms.
If I were the one deciding on this case I would rule in favor of DC allowing them to keep their gun restrictions. Although the constitution may allow the right for people to bear arms it doesn’t mean that the guns can be used to harm others. People that the right to three things as a citizen life, liberty, and property. With all the guns, people are losing their lives for a fight that can never be won. The job of the supreme court is to interpret the constitution and if one part conflicts with another the interpretation is left up to the justices therefore although the 2nd amendment guarantees the right the bear arms the justices can allow for some kind of restrictions so that the 2nd amendment doesn’t contradict with the idea of people having the right to life when they are citizens.
In the Constitution, the 2nd 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.". My interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that individuals are allowed to bare arms and posses a gun, within the regulations of the law. Individuals have the right to keep themselves and their families safe, in threatening situations, and lawful hunting activities. I also think the government has the right to set restrictions on the ownership of a gun, but the restrictions shouldn’t infringe on the people’s constitutional rights. Such restrictions may include background checks when a gun is purchased, a waiting period after applying for the gun but before you have it in your possession, and to lock up all weapons within the residence.
In the case of the District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Supreme Court had to make a decision if certain restrictions on gun ownership violate the Second Amendment. The restrictions are that you must register your handguns, must carry a license when possessing a pistol, and all lawful firearms must be kept unloaded and either disassembled or trigger locked. I believe these restrictions are only set to protect the safety of the people and to prevent dangerous accidents from occurring. If I was a Justice on the Supreme Court working on this case, I would vote that the restrictions set do not infringe on the rights stated in the 2nd Amendment. The restrictions still allow ownership and use of guns within the safety of the law. Individuals should be allowed to defend themselves, but having restrictions regulates the mishandling of the weapons that could cause harm to others in our society.
The district of Columbia should be able to regulate the restrictions set for this gun law. Although, this is a federal law, the District of Columbia has the right to set these regulations in order to keep their society safe. These regulations are like many others we have in the united states, such as, the seat belt law, it was put in place for the protection of the people. It was not put in place limit your movement, it was put in place to keep you safe and others around you. This is similar to the gun restrictions because it doesn’t prevent you form owning a gun, it it there for safety precautions.
You summed it up in one word: Constitution.
collier tiffany
collier vivienne
main bracelet chanel
porte cles chanel
porte cles louis vuitton
tee shirts manche longue
tee shirts armani manche longue
tee shirts boss manche longue
tee shirts burberry manche longue
tee shirts CK manche longue
tee shirts D&G manche longue
tee shirts diesel manche longue
tee shirts g star manche longue
tee shirts gucci manche longue
tee shirts jeep manche longue
tee shirts lv manche longue
tee shirts polo manche longue
tee shirts prada manche longue
tee shirts versace manche longue
Wonderful items from you, man. I have understand your stuff prior to and you are re just extremely fantastic. I really like what you have got here, certainly like what you are stating and the way during which you are saying it. You are making it enjoyable and you continue to care for to stay it sensible. I can’t wait to learn far more from you. This is actually a wonderful website.
wish to get a visit for Scientific Research on business and solution.
Post a Comment