“The Right to Bear Arms, and we’re not talking tank top weather.”

unknown

“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.”

You have the right to protect yourself, or do you? The Second Amendment has always been a source of controversy; there has always been a divide on whether people should be able to obtain and carry weapons or whether they should not have them at all. The creation of the Second Amendment took place during a different time under different cultural standards, but does that make it truly out of date? Should we cast aside an amendment that some find too “old fashioned,” “unnecessary,” or “too sensitive,” or should we keep it, or change its form?

There are two landmark Supreme Court Cases that discuss the Second Amendment in its purest form—one from 1939, “United States vs. Miller,” and more recently from 2008 “District of Columbia vs. Heller.”

In 1939 Jack Miller and Frank Layton were brought before the Supreme Court because they were accused in Arkansas of violating the National Firearms Act when they transported a double barrel 12-gauge shotgun across state lines. Miller and Layton said this accusation violated their Second Amendment rights, and within the state of Arkansas the district court agreed and dismissed their case. However, their case was taken to the Supreme Court, where a different verdict was found. In a unanimous decision the Supreme Court reversed the Miller/Layton Verdict and said that no, the Second Amendment does not protect the right to bear arms, if the weapon is unregistered. The court held true that Congress can and will require the registration of a sawed—off shotgun if it were to be carried across state lines. The court also reasoned that this modified weapon was not reasonable nor efficient in having a local militia. So, in the end it was not that the court seemed against the right to bear arms, but rather to a modification of the weapon and the failure to register it.

Now in a more recent case, The District of Columbia vs. Heller from 2008, the Second Amendment was also debated in relation to unregistered weapons. The basis of the law in the DOC was that it was illegal to carry an unregistered weapon and that all registered weapons had to be unloaded or disassembled at all times. Heller filed for a one year permit to carry, but was denied, so he sued and claimed that this law violated his Second Amendment rights to have a functional weapon within his home. With some dissenting opinions found in lower courts, Keller’s case traveled down the road to the Supreme Court, where in a 5-4 decision the court found that the DOC law was indeed in violation of the Second Amendment for it restricted the capability to properly defend oneself if needed. They also debated the modern meaning of “militia” and how it should apply to all citizens, for if it does not then the Second Amendment would be creating a force it was meant to inhibit. In the dissent for the group it was stated that the amendment only spoke to the creation of a militia and did not apply on a personal level. Others believed that the DOC would be able to make the best decision for its people and that the Supreme Court should let the DOC decide for itself what is best for its citizens.

So in regards to the Second Amendment there seems to be more debate on how to regulate and control the flow of weapons, rather than the basic question of: can people own them or not? The issue does not seem to be ownership, but who can obtain said ownership. It is unfortunate that in recent years there has been a spike in the amount of mass gun violence and an increase in more small crime violence as well, but is not the answer to lessening these numbers figuring out a way to prevent certain people from obtaining these weapons? Or is it not that simple? Can there ever be a simple, definite line where the rights of ownership of weapons can begin and end? Again, the law presents itself to be purely based on circumstance, but that circumstance, that ability to vary from situation to situation is where the grey areas come into play. And it is through the grey areas that debate and confusion over where individual freedoms begin and end occurs.

Most recent articles on the second amendment:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2016/09/15/officials-keep-whittling-away-at-second-amendment-rights/#6a09f02a4bb0

http://www.attn.com/stories/11401/veteran-jason-kander-assembles-gun-with-blindfold-in-ad

Websites:

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/

https://home.nra.org

unknown

 

 

 

One thought on ““The Right to Bear Arms, and we’re not talking tank top weather.”

  1. I can rant on this issue all day long. I believe in the right to bear arms under certain situations. The theme of your article;however, seemed to be right along the issue of what I believe in: regulation and control. Yes, there has been numerous accounts of murders, shootings, and general gun violence issues and thats why I believe that there needs to be more regulation, background checks, and protection of whose allowed to buy what. I don’t think everyone is entitled to carry a gun. People with mental disabilities, for example, should not be allowed to carry armed weapons. I don’t think the answer to lessening gun violence is by simply taking away certain people’s right but by making sure that the people who are buying them are using them for the right reasons and its the right people buying them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*
*