Why the Second Amendment Should Not Give Citizens the Right to Own Essay

Why the Second Amendment Should Not Give Citizens the Right to Own Assault Weaponry - see ExampleThe second amendment brings about a huge debate regarding the intended objective of this amendment. Some Americans and scholars alike are of the belief that this amendment brought forth an individualistic thoroughgoing undecomposed for American citizens to keep arms (Maier 21). On the other hand, other scholars are of the opinion that the language of the amendment, with focus on the words, a regulated reserves was intended at trying to restrict the United States copulation from legislating against a US states right to defending itself (Whitney, 42). On the root that the amendments intention was to give Americans the constitutional right to arm themselves (Maier 21), the constitution of the United States tries to restrain legislating against citizens right to possess firearms. This school of supposition explains that an amendment to denying citizens the right to own firearms would, in fact, be unconstitutional and therefore null and void (Halbrook 36). On the other hand, the school of thought advocating that the amendment was meant at restraining the US Congress from legislating against the rights of US states to defend themselves argues that the local, federal and state bodies are the ones that are entitled the right of bearing arms. This effectively locks out head-to-head citizens and individual from the right to bear arms (Whitney, 42). In the case of United States, V. Miller before the Supreme romance of the US in 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that citizens do not enjoy the right to arm themselves and thus interpreted the Second Amendment to mean that the US Congress could, in fact, come in and regulate against the rights of private citizens owning firearms (Halbrook 44). The above case became a precedent until the year 2008 when another case on the same issue of the second amendment came before the US Supreme Court again. In the 2008 case, the court, in the case of District of Columbia against Heller determined that the constitution of the US had indeed established the right to own firearms by individual citizens of the United States. As the plaintiff in the case, Heller was in court to argue against the legality of the ban on handguns in the state of Washington DC. This slash of legislation had been around for the last 32 years. The US Supreme Court, therefore, found the law to be unconstitutional and a violation of the right that US citizens vex to bear arms. In addition to the ruling, the court also ruled that the US constitution could in no way refuse to let the mentally ill, as well as criminals, bear arms. The ruling brought about the increased debate as to the real meaning of the second amendment and what the framers of this legislation had in mind when they create this piece of legislation. In the year 2010 in a case also related to the second amendment, in McDonald against Chicago city, the Supreme Court decided to ac company the argument that the second amendment was aimed at ensuring citizens enjoyed the right to arm themselves (Halbrook 78). The court determined that the second amendment meant that American citizens enjoyed the right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense. One judge dissented on the ruling, but a majority of the judges and indeed the ruling was that the handgun ban of Chicago that prohibited private individuals from bearing firearms was against the spirit of the constitution (Whitney 22). consort to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the year 2008 and 2010, the aim of the second amendment was to enable private individuals to bear arms.