Make sure to bookmark this page, as most of our class materials will be linked to this site.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Interpreting the 2nd Amendment
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."
"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."
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, up to 2 pages, that clearly states your opinion based on your constitutional views, and including any other factors that influence your position.
If I was one of the 9 Supreme Court Justices, I would rule in favor of Heller. The Second Amendment clearly states “An individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” For this case, you could argue that the District of Columbia is not a state, so therefore that Amendment does not apply. Why should you exclude people from the right to bear arms just because their residence is not a state? Also, I understand that people may argue that there are many government buildings in D.C., but people can not be left out based on just where they live, no matter who else lives there. I would be taking a stricter constructionist view. Although I think the government should rule with their opinion, they should also follow the Constitution.
In an area riddled with crime such as the District of Columbia, the gun placed upon its citizen’s causes harm to only the innocent. Those who abide by the ban are only putting themselves into a position of more danger. The crimes and murders caused by guns are committed by those who are willing to go against the ban on guns, no matter how strict the bar may be. The ruling that the District of Columbia is designated as a federal enclave, not an actual state, and that allows them to place a ban on the concealment of handguns is a pathetic excuse for a law. The fact of the matter is that the District of Columbia is part of the United States and despite them being designated differently from a state, they should still be able to obtain the same rights as all American citizens. The process on obtaining a gun is strict enough where only proper upstanding citizens are considered. They run through background checks and criminal records in order to ensure that the people who are purchasing the guns are upstanding citizens. I believe that it is important that the ruling in the District of Columbia v. Heller is overturned and citizens living in the city be allowed to conceal a handgun in order to protect themselves from the crime that occurs throughout the city. The ban on guns is obviously ineffective towards the crime rate within the city, because murders and robberies are still commonly committed. The ban on guns also only directs the people who live within the city’s limits, people who live in neighboring areas are still allowed to conceal handguns, and break this law whenever they travel into the city. People that do not even live in the city could be contributing to the crime rate, punishing those who do not commit crimes to have their second amendment rights infringed upon. The ones who are at fault are those who willingly carry a gun knowing that it is illegal, and the law enforcement for not doing a better job enforcing the ban to ensure the safety of all citizens living within the city. It is vital that the second amendment be upheld, even in a “federal enclave” such as the District of Columbia, and if the city wishes to see a drop in crime then they need to focus more on law enforcement, as opposed to simply banning something such as hand guns, because those who commit crimes are going to be willing to bypass the ban.
Not ALL U.S Citizens can bear arms. There are certain regulations that prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands. Particular rules resticitions ban guns from those with a criminal record or various other criteria. With that said, the government does not have the right to ban weapons from law abiding citizens. The ammdendment clearly states“An individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” Banning gun rights does just that. If you look at Washington D.C, for example, law abiding civilians now have limited protection and a lack of self defense. In reality, the criminals have an advantage, because they will have a gun on them whether it is legal or not, so depriving innocent citizens from self protection is unconstitutional, and illogical. So, does the 2nd Ammendment allow all Americans the right to bear arms? No. But law abiding, tax paying, sane individuals have the right, and the freedom to do so.
We have to be careful in the way we phrase the issue. Insisting on "constitutional rights" phraselolgy is to cede the premise to gun control advocates. There are no constitutional rights, only rights that happen to be mentioned (see the 9th Amendment).
We have to be clear. The Constitution creates and defines government, it does not describe or bestow rights. Its sole purpose is to rein in government so that the people can enjoy liberty.
After extensive review of the case of the District of Columbia v. Heller, I strongly rule in the favor of respondent Officer Dick Anthony Heller.
The Second Amendment provides 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". However, since its establishment in the Bill of Rights, it has been under fired. This case was mostly concerned with the phraseology of the Second Amendment. Is it the right of the militia or the right of the people to "keep and bear arms"? The Constitution states laws that were drafted by men who had a certain outlook on life, who were influenced by the piercing times of the late 18th century. Though try as we might, we cannot view the Constitution strictly through the eyes of the men of the past. We were bound to face situations where we would be forced to make our own judgments on a written law. This case is a clear example.
The District of Columbia had passed a law banning the possessions of handguns unless one is under federal directions. This means that one would not be able to purchase this sort of weapon to use in self-defense. Officer Heller had brought up the case to clarify his Second Amendment rights.
A dissenting strict constructionist would claim that the Amendment specifically protects anyone is in involved with military practices as the term "militia" was used but under close inspection, we will find that he is incorrect. The word "militia" referred to the group of men who were responsible for protecting the newly born United States against future adversaries. But it was the citizens who were part of the private, non government forces, left to protect the country. Also, the Second Amended followed the First which protect the rights of the people, and preceded the Third, which also defends the people’s rights, so it’s natural to see the Second Amendment as protecting the rights of the general public. When the writers of the Bill of Rights wrote "militia", I believe they essentially meant the people. Many, including Walter Dellenger who defended DC in the case, have used the term "militia" and "the people" interchangeably without seeing the connection.
In addition, to deny one's right to protect himself is absurd. Heller had wanted to secure his home by possessing a handgun, yet was not allowed the privilege all because of the desire of DC to protect the city as a whole. In reality, the ban currently in effect will not diminish the crime rates of DC. A criminal will not care to break the ban as a criminal has no moral judgment or conscience. The law is only leaving the citizens without protection as vulnerable victims, and the ban will be at fault for the citizens' disadvantages.
In conclusion, the ban that DC had placed on its people is unconstitutional as it bans a popular weapon for self-defense and only lists that classification of guns. The term "militia" is actually an indication of the people as well as those that involved in the military services.
I am in this case very much a loose constructionist. The writers of the Constitution wrote their laws based on their point of views. They did not think ahead to the year 2003 to prepare for the DC v. Heller case. It's impossible to follow the Constitution completely when the situations that we come across are different each and every time. My colleagues and I were forced to make a decision based on our separate views of the Constitution. And I have reached my decision.
"The writers of the Constitution wrote their laws based on their point of views. They did not think ahead to the year 2003 to prepare for the DC v. Heller case. It's impossible to follow the Constitution completely when the situations that we come across are different each and every time."
Not true. The Framers were thinking ahead by restraining government from violating the rights of citizens.
They further thought ahead by writing Section V, Amendment. If the Constitution needs to be changed, amend it. It is quite possible to follow the Constitution completely. In fact, it is required.
After reading this case of the District of Columbia v. Heller many times I'm going to have to agree with Heller in this argument. 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." In this amendment it says militia and this is what confused me at first because many people question whether ordinary people wanting to protect themselves fall into this category. I believe that as a citizen of the United States of America I have a right to protect myself and my home against criminal actions and injustices. The constitution was written in the past by men who had a different perspective on scenarios when you are allowed to keep and bear arms. In the world today I find that it is essential to keep yourself protected especially now since the crime rate has definitely risen since these laws have been created and I feel times have changed. Officer Heller had mentioned this case to explain his Second Amendment rights. The District of Columbia had passed a law prohibiting the possessions of handguns unless one is under federal instructions and this also means that you would not be able to buy this type of protection for self-defense. I understand that the government doesn't want these kind of weapons available for people with the wrong type of intent. Such as people that have a history of being a criminal or mentally disturbed and would use them as a threat, but law-abiding citizens have the right to bear arms to protect themselves from the people that get the firearms illegally. In this case Heller merely wanted to gain security from potential crime in his city and was denied this right. It was said that D.C. was going to save the city from harm, but some criminal acts may not be accounted for and it just might happen that that act would be the time you needed your self- protection the most especially with the immoral mind of a criminal. I think that I have more of a stricter constructionist view on this case. My reasons are that the government should give all kinds of opinions but they should not forget about the rights of Americans and in this case especially the Second Amendment. Also I feel that the location does not matter because even though some areas have a higher chance of crime, These acts are possible anywhere at any time and I feel that we should have the right to prepare for theses possible actions.
8 comments:
Since the Constitution doesn't bestow rights, the 2nd Amendment's only purpose is to limit what government can do.
If I was one of the 9 Supreme Court Justices, I would rule in favor of Heller. The Second Amendment clearly states “An individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” For this case, you could argue that the District of Columbia is not a state, so therefore that Amendment does not apply. Why should you exclude people from the right to bear arms just because their residence is not a state? Also, I understand that people may argue that there are many government buildings in D.C., but people can not be left out based on just where they live, no matter who else lives there. I would be taking a stricter constructionist view. Although I think the government should rule with their opinion, they should also follow the Constitution.
In an area riddled with crime such as the District of Columbia, the gun placed upon its citizen’s causes harm to only the innocent. Those who abide by the ban are only putting themselves into a position of more danger. The crimes and murders caused by guns are committed by those who are willing to go against the ban on guns, no matter how strict the bar may be. The ruling that the District of Columbia is designated as a federal enclave, not an actual state, and that allows them to place a ban on the concealment of handguns is a pathetic excuse for a law. The fact of the matter is that the District of Columbia is part of the United States and despite them being designated differently from a state, they should still be able to obtain the same rights as all American citizens. The process on obtaining a gun is strict enough where only proper upstanding citizens are considered. They run through background checks and criminal records in order to ensure that the people who are purchasing the guns are upstanding citizens. I believe that it is important that the ruling in the District of Columbia v. Heller is overturned and citizens living in the city be allowed to conceal a handgun in order to protect themselves from the crime that occurs throughout the city. The ban on guns is obviously ineffective towards the crime rate within the city, because murders and robberies are still commonly committed. The ban on guns also only directs the people who live within the city’s limits, people who live in neighboring areas are still allowed to conceal handguns, and break this law whenever they travel into the city. People that do not even live in the city could be contributing to the crime rate, punishing those who do not commit crimes to have their second amendment rights infringed upon. The ones who are at fault are those who willingly carry a gun knowing that it is illegal, and the law enforcement for not doing a better job enforcing the ban to ensure the safety of all citizens living within the city. It is vital that the second amendment be upheld, even in a “federal enclave” such as the District of Columbia, and if the city wishes to see a drop in crime then they need to focus more on law enforcement, as opposed to simply banning something such as hand guns, because those who commit crimes are going to be willing to bypass the ban.
Not ALL U.S Citizens can bear arms. There are certain regulations that prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands. Particular rules resticitions ban guns from those with a criminal record or various other criteria.
With that said, the government does not have the right to ban weapons from law abiding citizens. The ammdendment clearly states“An individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” Banning gun rights does just that. If you look at Washington D.C, for example, law abiding civilians now have limited protection and a lack of self defense. In reality, the criminals have an advantage, because they will have a gun on them whether it is legal or not, so depriving innocent citizens from self protection is unconstitutional, and illogical.
So, does the 2nd Ammendment allow all Americans the right to bear arms? No. But law abiding, tax paying, sane individuals have the right, and the freedom to do so.
We have to be careful in the way we phrase the issue. Insisting on "constitutional rights" phraselolgy is to cede the premise to gun control advocates. There are no constitutional rights, only rights that happen to be mentioned (see the 9th Amendment).
We have to be clear. The Constitution creates and defines government, it does not describe or bestow rights. Its sole purpose is to rein in government so that the people can enjoy liberty.
After extensive review of the case of the District of Columbia v. Heller, I strongly rule in the favor of respondent Officer Dick Anthony Heller.
The Second Amendment provides 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". However, since its establishment in the Bill of Rights, it has been under fired. This case was mostly concerned with the phraseology of the Second Amendment. Is it the right of the militia or the right of the people to "keep and bear arms"? The Constitution states laws that were drafted by men who had a certain outlook on life, who were influenced by the piercing times of the late 18th century. Though try as we might, we cannot view the Constitution strictly through the eyes of the men of the past. We were bound to face situations where we would be forced to make our own judgments on a written law. This case is a clear example.
The District of Columbia had passed a law banning the possessions of handguns unless one is under federal directions. This means that one would not be able to purchase this sort of weapon to use in self-defense. Officer Heller had brought up the case to clarify his Second Amendment rights.
A dissenting strict constructionist would claim that the Amendment specifically protects anyone is in involved with military practices as the term "militia" was used but under close inspection, we will find that he is incorrect. The word "militia" referred to the group of men who were responsible for protecting the newly born United States against future adversaries. But it was the citizens who were part of the private, non government forces, left to protect the country. Also, the Second Amended followed the First which protect the rights of the people, and preceded the Third, which also defends the people’s rights, so it’s natural to see the Second Amendment as protecting the rights of the general public. When the writers of the Bill of Rights wrote "militia", I believe they essentially meant the people. Many, including Walter Dellenger who defended DC in the case, have used the term "militia" and "the people" interchangeably without seeing the connection.
In addition, to deny one's right to protect himself is absurd. Heller had wanted to secure his home by possessing a handgun, yet was not allowed the privilege all because of the desire of DC to protect the city as a whole. In reality, the ban currently in effect will not diminish the crime rates of DC. A criminal will not care to break the ban as a criminal has no moral judgment or conscience. The law is only leaving the citizens without protection as vulnerable victims, and the ban will be at fault for the citizens' disadvantages.
In conclusion, the ban that DC had placed on its people is unconstitutional as it bans a popular weapon for self-defense and only lists that classification of guns. The term "militia" is actually an indication of the people as well as those that involved in the military services.
I am in this case very much a loose constructionist. The writers of the Constitution wrote their laws based on their point of views. They did not think ahead to the year 2003 to prepare for the DC v. Heller case. It's impossible to follow the Constitution completely when the situations that we come across are different each and every time. My colleagues and I were forced to make a decision based on our separate views of the Constitution. And I have reached my decision.
"The writers of the Constitution wrote their laws based on their point of views. They did not think ahead to the year 2003 to prepare for the DC v. Heller case. It's impossible to follow the Constitution completely when the situations that we come across are different each and every time."
Not true. The Framers were thinking ahead by restraining government from violating the rights of citizens.
They further thought ahead by writing Section V, Amendment. If the Constitution needs to be changed, amend it. It is quite possible to follow the Constitution completely. In fact, it is required.
After reading this case of the District of Columbia v. Heller many times I'm going to have to agree with Heller in this argument. 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." In this amendment it says militia and this is what confused me at first because many people question whether ordinary people wanting to protect themselves fall into this category. I believe that as a citizen of the United States of America I have a right to protect myself and my home against criminal actions and injustices. The constitution was written in the past by men who had a different perspective on scenarios when you are allowed to keep and bear arms. In the world today I find that it is essential to keep yourself protected especially now since the crime rate has definitely risen since these laws have been created and I feel times have changed. Officer Heller had mentioned this case to explain his Second Amendment rights. The District of Columbia had passed a law prohibiting the possessions of handguns unless one is under federal instructions and this also means that you would not be able to buy this type of protection for self-defense. I understand that the government doesn't want these kind of weapons available for people with the wrong type of intent. Such as people that have a history of being a criminal or mentally disturbed and would use them as a threat, but law-abiding citizens have the right to bear arms to protect themselves from the people that get the firearms illegally. In this case Heller merely wanted to gain security from potential crime in his city and was denied this right. It was said that D.C. was going to save the city from harm, but some criminal acts may not be accounted for and it just might happen that that act would be the time you needed your self- protection the most especially with the immoral mind of a criminal. I think that I have more of a stricter constructionist view on this case. My reasons are that the government should give all kinds of opinions but they should not forget about the rights of Americans and in this case especially the Second Amendment. Also I feel that the location does not matter because even though some areas have a higher chance of crime, These acts are possible anywhere at any time and I feel that we should have the right to prepare for theses possible actions.
Post a Comment