Table of ContentsHistory of the Second AmendmentWriters' Understanding of the Right to Own GunsExamples of When and Where the Principle Was Used History of the Second AmendmentThe Second Amendment to the US Constitution United States was primarily executed in order to protect the right of people to keep or bear arms. The Supreme Court grants this right to individuals but not to a militia group. However, the decision is clear in limiting and prohibiting various possessions of firearms and related devices. The implementation of the amendment was adopted in 1791 and was one of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights. The amendment was partly borrowed from the British version relating to the possession and use of weapons. In this case, it was described as an auxiliary right aimed at supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the role of citizens in general. The purpose of this article is to analyze this second amendment by addressing various questions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The Second Amendment contains provisions allowing the government to manage the emergence of militias that might abuse the government's right to own guns. However, the existence of such provisions helps ensure that the right of citizens to own weapons is protected. The authors of the amendment had various reasons for proposing this amendment. They asserted that there was a need for disciplined and regulated armed citizens. However, to establish such an act, it was necessary to issue certain regulations governing the defense of the country. Additionally, the authors claimed that although there has been extensive legislative action regarding the regulation, ownership as well as transportation of firearms. However, prior to the amendment, the courts had not definitively ruled on the right the amendment possessed. Theories opposing the amendment had oversimplified the term “individual rights”. In this case, the authors' goal was to address the protection of gun ownership, possession, and transportation. It is worth mentioning that the authors understood the need to protect states in terms of their authority to maintain a formal and organized system. militia. The amendment aims to exclude federal action, but without extending to the federal state. The Supreme Court gave effect to the dependent clause of the amendment. However, this is only significant if it tested congressional ratification against the constitutional restriction. Well-regulated militias have the right to bear and keep weapons, and these should not be given to organized groups. In this case, the authors of the amendment understood that it would only allow members of the official militia to own firearms. Furthermore, they believed that the national command could not abolish the state militias. The pioneering Second Amendment lawsuit was brought in 1876 in US v. Cruikshank. This involved members of a certain group denying standard liberties to black citizens. Some of these rights included the right of assembly as well as the right to bear arms. In its decision, the court affirmed that the right of everyone to bear arms was not provided for by the constitution. However, it was not until ten years later that the court upheld the decision in Presser v. Illinois. In this case, the decision held that the national government could ban gun ownership, but not the states. Furthermore, the issue was revisited in 1894 inMiller v. Texas. In that case, Miller sued the Texas state government, arguing that he was allowed to possess a gun under the protections of the Second Amendment. However, the court struck down the argument that the amendment excluded state law, such as Texas' restrictions on carrying concealed and dangerous weapons. Of the three cases; The authors of the amendment solidified their understanding regarding this clause of the bill of rights. Therefore, the amendment does not prevent local governments from establishing their rules on gun ownership. There has been no real verdict on the Second Amendment until recently in US v. Miller. In that case, Miller and Layton were transporting unregistered short guns across state lines and had to be arrested. These weapons had been banned since the National Firearms Act was enacted a half-decade earlier. According to the defendant, this act violated the rights set forth in the Second Amendment. The court rejected this idea, stating that in the absence of specific evidence intended to demonstrate that possession of a short rifle during this period had any concrete connection with the effectiveness of a properly regulated militia. Additionally, in 2008, the court revisited the issue in Colombia V. Heller. The case revolved around Dick Heller, who was a commissioned officer from Washington, DC. In that case, he challenged the ban on handguns in the nation's capital. It was the first time the Supreme Court had ruled that, despite state laws, individuals not in the state militia can possess firearms as they wish. Ideally, the amendment encouraged citizens to own and bear weapons at their discretion, provided they did not use them as militias. Furthermore, it also involves the use of this weapon for traditional legitimate purposes, including self-protection within one's home. Therefore, the Second Amendment protects citizens from gun ownership as long as they are not connected to militia activities. The preliminary section of the amendment announces the purpose of the amendment. However, it does not limit or extend the limits of the second part involving the device. In this clause, an individual is empowered to possess and use a weapon diligently. There is some connection between the preliminary clause and the court's interpretation of the clause. The war over who should own or bear guns has sparked a string of cases in America for over a hundred years now. The common defense has been interpreted as a scapegoat used by some people to hide after committing atrocities and manslaughter. To critics, the bill is nothing more than what they call a "lack of value for human life." However, for this long and heated debate over the Second Amendment to end, supporters of the amendment and critics must come to a common understanding. The two parties disagree on two key elements that prove they are right[9]. The critics' main concern is the well-being of each individual in society. On the other hand, supporters of the Second Amendment embrace the idea that it guarantees the well-being of citizens by ensuring that everyone has the right to protect themselves. By looking at the amendment from these two angles, a deduction that could help end the debate could be made. Efforts by both parties to accommodate each other's views is the only way to make progress on the issue, as no one can be said to be entirely wrong.Writers' Understanding of the Right to Own Guns The idea of ​​owning a gun was embraced by society at the time. that the amendment was adopted into law. The reason for this was the increase in cases of crime seen in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. However, over time, the Second Amendment which allows the carrying of a firearm for self-defense has been widely criticized by many voices with contrary views. Among these many voices, several writers have addressed the issue in depth, most of them critics. According to a recent article published on the Godfather Politics website, the writer asserts and conveys the idea that with a gun in their hands, criminals are very reasonable people. The author adds that the Second Amendment is likely to protect lawbreakers more than civilians. He argues that the Second Amendment gives guns to lawbreakers instead of ensuring they don't fall into the wrong hands. In the article, the author mentions the opinions of former NYPD detective Wallace Zeins that all someone needs in the event of an attack is a car key and wasp spray. Better yet, it highlights that there are even better choices one can make to improve their safety. For example, the advanced alarm system, which is safer than having a gun in the house. Although there are cases where wasp spray hasn't worked, there are better choices than advocating gun carry, according to the article. In another article published recently in the New York Times, the Second Amendment could also end up causing civil problems. in the future. The war on racism has long been a relevant issue in American history. However, according to the New York Times article, the right to bear arms advocated by the Second Amendment could have caused critical problems on the racism situation in the country. Over the past four years, there have been numerous reported cases of white people shooting black people and vice versa, later claiming it was an act of self-defense. According to Waldman, the president of the Brennan Center of Justice at New York University made two important discoveries. He did so after returning to the amendment's original statement. One of his discoveries was particularly surprising. The assumption made by the Founders when the Second Amendment became law was that all men should still serve in militias as they did at the time. This therefore shows that the initiators of the law had no intention that the weapons would end up in the hands of ordinary civilians who might end up harming themselves or others. The second aspect, Waldman describes that the second part of the Second Amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear firearms", referred to military defense and not defense of a fellow citizen. In an article written about Helen Keller in the New York Times, it is clear that during her lifetime, human rights were necessary. The judge in her case described that every life has value, even if it seems pointless and individual. The case of Helen Keller proved to society that every human life has value. The article also states that every human being has the right to live, something that carrying guns does not promise. Examples of when and where the principle was used. In the United States, people have the right to own guns. The Second Amendment to the Constitution protects this right. However, this right is not unlimited but regulated. State and local governments are regulated the same as the federal government. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. It was based on the lawto own weapons. It supports the rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression. Furthermore, it reinforces the civic duty to defend the state. The amendment was part of the Bill of Rights. The purpose of this article is to show cases involving the amendment. One of the cases was United States v. Cruikshank, in 1876. The case occurred during the Reconstruction era due to the election of the governor. It is worth mentioning that the elections aroused strong opposition, causing many social tensions. For example, in 1873, an armed militia of white Democrats attacked black Republican freedmen. Some black people were armed and trying to protect themselves. Freedmen had rallied to resist an attempted democratic capture. About a hundred black people were killed in the massacre. Prosecutions were also brought against members of the white mob under the Enforcement Act of 1870. This law prevented two or more people from denying anyone their constitutional right. Other accusations included that freedmen avoided gathering and keeping their weapons freely. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause apply only to the state. He therefore declined the reasons of the European-American men. Prior to this decision, the court had stated that the right of assembly was not intended to diminish the powers of the state over its citizens. Additionally, the constitution does not provide the right to own firearms. The Supreme Court further affirmed that citizens have the right to both governments, including the national government and the state. In 1877, federal troops withdrew from the south. This resulted in flawed and violent elections because whites fought to prevent blacks from voting. Another case involving the Second Amendment was United States v. the Millers. In 1994 (NFA), under the National Firearms Act, the case took the form of a criminal prosecution. One indictment charged possession of an unregistered 12-gauge double-barrel shotgun. The defendants were Jack Miller and Frank Layton who were carrying the firearm. One objection alleged that the National Gun Act is a means of usurping police power reserved for the states and therefore unconstitutional. This further offended the inhibition of the amendment to the constitution. The court quashed the indictment and upheld the stay of appeal. The court did not take judicial notice that the short pistol described had a strong connection to the effectiveness of a well-organized militia. Therefore, the court could not establish that the constitution allowed citizens to possess such a weapon. Miller was a bank robber. He could not hire a lawyer to appeal to the Supreme Court but rather disappear. The government's appeal which took place immediately ensured his victory as he would not even show up. On March 30, 1939, the government appealed the court's decision. He argued that the NFA was a revenue collection measure. It therefore fell under the authority of the Department of the Treasury. The government further claimed that the defendants used the weapon in interstate commerce. He also argued that this constitutional provision protects the possession of military-grade weapons used in planned militias. The final defense was that the weapon had never been used in any militia network. Additionally, on May 15, 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that carrying an unregistered shotgun was constitutional. Additionally, the court said he did not violate the Second Amendment. District of Columbia v. Heller is another mattercarried in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The District of Columbia prohibits possession of a firearm without a license. It further restricts the registration of handguns. However, it allows the police chief to issue one-year permits. Residents must have legal, unloaded weapons. Heller, a D.C. police officer, applied for handgun registration. However, the District declined. He filed a Second Amendment lawsuit opposing restrictions on handgun possession in one's home. He argued that the clause protects a person's right to own firearms. Therefore insisting that the ban on handguns and the obligation to keep them non-functional violated this right. The DC further held that the operative clauses of the amendment allowed individuals to retain firearms. He said the handgun ban and trigger lock requirement limited an entire group of weapons people choose for self-defense. Moreover, the preliminary clause is consistent with the court's elucidation of the operative clause. The militia was composed of men physically capable of acting in defense. The response was to deny Congress the power to curtail the people's historic right to own guns to preserve the ideal militia. The Supreme Court struck down notions of gun control regulations as unconstitutional. Dick Heller, who was a licensed police officer, did not have permission to carry a firearm in his home. He had contacted the National Rifle Association to plan for lifting the gun ban. The NRA refused and he decided to appeal. The appeals court said he had standing to seek relief. The court determined that guns would not be banned in the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court issued a decision in McDonald v. Chicago, in which individual states were determined to have the right to possess firearms under the provisions of the Second Amendment. The decision complemented the District v. Heller verdict which was unclear. The appeals court initially upheld the handgun ban and other regulations regarding shotguns. However, the oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010 and June 28, 2010; The Supreme Court rejected the Seventh Circuit's decision. The arguments claimed that the Second Amendment was included in the Fourteenth Amendment. It thus protects the right of individuals to own firearms. In McDonald v. Chicago, a resident named McDonald claimed his home had been burglarized five times. He feared gangs and drug dealers operating in his neighborhood and chose to purchase a gun for personal protection. However, due to gun ownership requirements and the ban on handguns, he was unable to possess one. So he agreed with three other Chicagoans to file a lawsuit that became McDonald's v. Chicago. He challenged the law because it reduced his chances of owning a gun since he could not register his handgun. This affected a broad ban on handguns. He further challenged the requirement to register firearms and re-register them every year. It was important to enforce the provisions of this law against the state through selective incorporation. He asked the court to dismiss the slaughterhouse cases. Slaughterhouse indicated that the Privileges Clause of the 14th Change was not applicable to the States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court said the constitutional clause protects the right to.