Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Gun control and its disadvantages
Gun regulations in america
Second amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Gun control and its disadvantages
One of the largest debates facing the United States deals with the right to own firearms. In 2008, a D.C. special police officer Dick Anthony Heller attempted to register a handgun to keep at home for his safety. The District of Columbia also known as Washington D.C. had laws that prohibited a citizen from owning a handgun and denied Heller's registration even though he is a licensed police officer. In the Second Amendment it states that the people have the “right to keep and bear arms” (Oyez, District of Columbia v Heller). Enforcing this law which prevented Heller from being able to register a handgun for his own personal safety at home violated the second amendment which was a basic right of the people. Heller took this matter to court in
With many recent incidents that involve guns between 2012 and 2013, gun control laws have become a hot topic in America. On one hand, after the horrific incident like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting at Newtown in 2012, most people wanting to limit guns from getting into the wrong by setting up a rigorous system that control who can and cannot obtain a gun. On the other hand, we have the people who believe that with such rigorous system in place is violated the individual rights that granted and protected by the United States Constitution. They believe that the rigorous system will prevent people from defending themselves and could be a violation of their privacy. Regardless of which side is right, if we want to understand more about our current conflict, we have to look back on how this hold debate started. The District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court case in 2008 that found the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 unconstitutional, which influence the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense by questioning the Second Amendment and laws that restrict a person from acquire guns.
Over the centuries, the Supreme Court has always ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the states' militia's rights to bear arms, and that this protection does not extend to individuals. In fact, legal scholars consider the issue "settled law." For this reason, the gun lobby does not fight for its perceived constitutional right to keep and bear arms before the Supreme Court, but in Congress. Interestingly, even interpreting an individual right in the 2nd Amendment presents the gun lobby with some thorny problems, like the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons.
This article discusses the amendment about gun control specifically the right to bear arms. But it isn’t discussing it on the U.S. mainland but instead on the District of Columbia. The Controversy is whether or not the District is bound to the same laws and amendments that the rest of the United States is. The Current law in Columbia is there is a universal ban on guns. So should the U.S. Supreme Court vote to allow citizens to bear arms or should the 30-year-old ban be erased. This article briefly discusses the current rights of mainland American citizens and their rights to bearing arms. Although its an amendment for a citizen of the United States to bear arms most people today probably won’t ever need to or have to. With that being said though gun control in the U.S. is still a problem year in and year out.
Heller,” the United States Supreme Court revealed what the Second Amendment is really about. In June 2008, a S.W.A.T. officer with the Washington, D.C., Police Department sued in the District of Columbia District Court for the right to carry a handgun while off duty. The Supreme Court ruled that he had the right to carry a weapon for a lawful purpose, and the District Court's opinion was reversed from the decision in 1939 when the Second Amendment was last interpreted. It also ruled that two District of Columbia laws, one that banned handguns and the other one that required firearms kept in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violated the Second Amendment
This essay will discuss the pros and cons of gun control. Some U.S. States have already adopted some of these gun control laws. I will be talking about the 2nd amendment, public safety, home safety, and do gun control laws really control guns. I hope after you have read this you will be more educated, and can pick your side of the gun control debate. So keep reading and find out more about the gun control laws that the federal and some state governments want to enforce on U.S. Citizens.
Throughout the past decade or so the Second Amendment rights issues have arisen with the demand of individuals rights to keep and bear arms. The constitution states the “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 court case upheld in the Supreme Court Columbia vs. Heller, the ongoing debate of this interpretation of the Second Amendment. Heller, a special officer in Washington D.C., was denied the right to being able to register a handgun to keep at home. This case was taken up to the Supreme Court due to Heller’s argument stating that the government of the nation’s capital must obey the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because these texts are the supreme law of the land. Heller’s belief of injunction was certain, “at least one of the founding fathers said that there will be times when the State or Federal Government will overstep its bounds and will need to be put back into its place.” There has not been any lower court cases or any true precedent case besides Columbia vs. Heller for Drake vs. Jerejian. Drake vs. Jerejian seeks an end to the unjustified denial of carry permits by the State of New Jersey; and the unreasonable restriction for concealed carry permits citing “justifiable need” or “urgent necessity” for the issuance of a permit. Constitutional rights are protected under the law and may not be denied by government officials because of perceived “need” or “necessity.” The Second Amendment should not only guarantee this right to possess firearms to members of militia but also to those who may grant this privilege, as well that it’s a right in our constitution. An individual’s Second Amendment right should se...
...o militias, and dismissed his lawsuit. Heller perused his lawsuit; the matter was appealed and sent to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Court of Appeals reversed the lowers court decision based on reasons the Second Amendment clearly mentions an individual may bear arms while serving in the militia, and the same individual has a right protect himself and his family as sacrosanct. The court concludes that the city’s ban on handguns and its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional violated that right. In other words, an individual need not be in a militia to own a firearm, it is an individual’s right to own a firearm in self -defense. Heller concluded his defense by saying, “self-defense is a basic right recognized by ancient legal system to present, and it is the central component of the Second Amendment”
America is the most well armed nation in the world, with American citizens owning about 270 million of the world’s 875 million firearms (Marshall). Indeed, this is more than a quarter of the world’s registered firearms. The reason why Americans own so many guns is because of the Second Amendment, which 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.” (Rauch) This amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to have firearms. Since this amendment is relatively vague, it is up for interpretation, and is often used by gun advocates to argue for lenient gun laws. Hence, gun control is a frequently discussed controversial topic in American politics.
While the political topics most often discussed in the media over the past several years have been about the economy and wars on terror, gun control is still a major issue that is still being debated in Washington. Some congressmen, usually of the liberal persuasion, advocate stricter gun laws that would limit the number of guns on the street and their availability to the public. Other congressmen, usually of the conservative variety, advocate more relaxed gun laws that would increase public access to guns. The arguments over whether or not gun laws should be written to constrict gun sales or enhance gun sales often leads to discussion of the constitution, not only because of its precedence over all other laws and the connotations of claiming a proposal is unconstitutional (and hence clearly un-American,) but because the second amendment exists to guarantee citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Debates over specifics on gun control are superfluous for one simple reason: everyone should have a gun.
Gun control has been a controversial issue for many years. A vast majority of citizens believe that if gun control is strictly enforced it would quickly reduce the threat of crime. Many innocent people feel they have the right to bear arms for protection, or even just the pleasure of hunting. Americans have a constitutional right to own hand guns and stricter laws and licensing will not affectively save lives.
The debate over the right to bear arms according to the Second Amendment has been a hotly contested issue for many years in American history. The matter has been one of the most controversial issues in the second half of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first; disputed between politicians on the liberal and conservative side along with issues such as abortion, capital punishment, and gay marriage. The Supreme Court has officially defined the controversial Second Amendment by stating that states have the right to maintain a militia separate from a federally controlled army (Gale Encyclopedia, pg. 155-162). However, “Courts have consistently held that the state and federal governments may lawfully regulate the sale, transfer, receipt, possession, and use of certain categories of firearms, as well as mandate who may and may not own a gun (Gale Encyclopedia, pg. 155-162).” Therefore, the issue is one that is extremely hard to clarify. Which side is right?
Nelson Lund, JD, PhD, Professor at George Mason University School of Law once stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life …. many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals”. When we 're born, we are born with the right of life, and with the right of life came the right to self protection. There has been many laws that contradict the right of life just as the right of self protection. Justice Stevens once stated that “The Second Amendment’s structure was notable for its omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense”. Justice steven noted that the second right amendment covers us from self defence and hunting. Self defence is a really big topic because of the fact that most people die on the hands of others because they have nothing to defend themselves with. A report from New York Times once said that Wayne Lapierre, N.R.A executive vice president once stated that “The only only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun”. Reports were found that in Newtown connecticut in a public school, none of the school employees were armed and they had no defence when it came down to a school shooting. People were harmed and
In 2008, the Supreme Court decided in the case of, District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects a civilian’s right to keep a handgun in his home for the reason of self-defense. In Chicago the case of McDonald v. Chicago the court decided the due process clause of the 14th Amendment limits the power of the city of Chicago to ban the possession of handguns by private citizens. In my opinion both decisions misinterpreted the amendment completely.
The second amendment says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The second amendment was made for two things. It is there for first, to guarantee the individuals right to have arms for self-defense and self-preservation. The second reason is related to the militia. The right to carry a handgun for self-protection is a privilege of citizenship. The confusion is the right of the state or the individual. The regulation of handguns could be looked at as unconstitutional. The amendment is for the people and not the state.
For years proposals for gun control and the ownership of firearms have been among the most controversial issues in modern American politics. The public debate over guns in the United States is often seen as having two side. Some people passionately assert that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns while others assert that the Second Amendment does no more than protect the right of states to maintain militias. There are many people who insist that the Constitution is a "living document" and that circumstances have changed in regard to an individual’s right to bear arms that the Second Amendment upholds. The Constitution is not a document of total clarity and the Second Amendment is perhaps one of the worst drafted of all its amendments and has left many Americans divided over the true intent.