blog




  • Essay / The Second Amendment to the American Constitution

    What is the Second Amendment and why is it important to us today? The Second Amendment as written in the Constitution 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.” » (Amendment II of the American Constitution). The Second Amendment was created to prevent the government of the newly founded United States of America from abusing and endangering its people. The Second Amendment to the Constitution has been distorted and misinterpreted time and time again since its conception. This has given rise to countless debates and issues centered on this topic. Evolving interpretation of the Second Amendment and firearms have not helped either, creating multiple conflicting laws and clauses. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay Likewise, judges have the ability to interpret amendments differently, thereby changing the interpretation of the Second Amendment in modern times. This can be seen in the case of Heller v. District of Columbia. The Second Amendment does serve an important purpose today and always will, but it cannot stand unmoderated and must be adjusted. To understand the importance of the Second Amendment today, it is important to understand how it was interpreted when it was initially created. When it was created on December 15, 1791, the Second Amendment had two very different interpretations, with many believing that the clause stating: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." (US Const. Amendment II) applied to any citizen of the United States of America and that, in any case, removing a citizen's firearm is considered unconstitutional. On the other hand, people also thought that the prefatory clause "A Well-Regulated Militia" (US Const. Amendment II) meant that this amendment only applied to the state militia, thus removing the firearm of a citizen who does not belong to the state militia. a militia would not be unconstitutional. As UCLA law professor Adam Winkler notes: “Even though the Founders sought to protect citizens from complete disarmament, they did not wish to prevent the government from enacting reasonable regulations regarding firearms and their owners . (Winkler and Lund) and as Nelson Lund, professor at George Mason and Antonin Scalia Law School, states: "Similarly, no reasonable person would believe that violent criminals should have unfettered access to firearms, or that everyone should own a firearm. nuclear weapon” (Winkler and Lund). Both state that the Second Amendment cannot go unregulated and that the Second Amendment's lack of clarity has posed a significant problem for judges as well as citizens of the United States. In Heller v. District of Columbia, we can see that the interpretation of the provisions of the Second Amendment played an important role in the outcome of this trial. Defendant Heller, a police officer, requested a handgun so he could have it in his home. The District denied him the right to own a gun, so he filed a lawsuit against them, claiming the District violated his right to own a gun. The district court dismissed Heller's case, but the D.C. Circuit overturned it, they said the Second Amendment clearly protects an individual's right to own firearms and that infringing on that right was unconstitutional . He added that the city's ban on all firearmshandgun and the fact that weapons remaining in a person's home must remain non-functional even when necessary for self-defense, violated this right. Scalia quoted: “The ban on handguns amounts to a ban on an entire class of 'weapons' that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for this legitimate purpose. The prohibition further extends to the home, where the need to defend oneself, one's family, and one's property is most acute” (Heller v. District of Columbia). This suit was taken all the way to the Supreme Court, where the justices asserted that the Second Amendment clause said that the right to bear arms is an individual right, and that it can also be exercised in the home. The Second Amendment was created so that Anti-Federalists would not fear that a standing army controlled by the government would be capable of oppressing the citizens of a nation. In his dissent, Justice Breyer acknowledged this fact: "Assuring 18th-century citizens that they could keep guns for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep guns that they could also have used for self-defense." (Heller v. District of Columbia). It was also noted that before and after the ratification of the Second Amendment, many state laws regulating firearms included an individual's right to bear a weapon, which upheld the justices' interpretation of the Second Amendment. The justices then added that the Second Amendment, while it protects an individual's right to bear arms, is not unlimited. Justice Scalia said: “Like most rights, the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the cases of the 19th century, commentators and courts regularly explained that the right was not the right to keep and carry a weapon in any manner, in any manner, and at any time. end whatever” (Heller v. District of Columbia). It could be restricted in cases where exercising this right might not be legal, such as in a school or government office. The court reached this conclusion through Heller's oral statement, asserting that "DC licensing law is permissible if not applied arbitrarily and capriciously" (Heller v. District of Columbia). They decided that as long as the Second Amendment was to be enforced and respected, the district had to give Heller the license and permission to carry a handgun in his home. This case strengthens the 21st century interpretation of the Second Amendment. The modern interpretation of the Second Amendment can be seen in Heller v. District of Columbia. It is more widely considered an amendment that protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, but may be limited by other external laws as long as they do not infringe on a citizen's fundamental right to defend yourself. So unnecessarily powerful and absurd weapons like the AR-15 or M-16, military-grade assault weapons, might not be protected by the Second Amendment. But a more conventional, less lethal firearm, like a pistol, will be protected under this amendment. Restricting the type of weapons we can own is still very important today. This right is an integral part of our protection as citizens; it is just another of the many tools that protect citizens against a corrupt government. Many people believe that this amendment has led to the deaths of countless people and that it should be removed. But the idea that a tyrannical government cannot abuse a defenseless people is absurd. This happens all over the world, especially in dictatorships where citizens have little or no.