Contemporary Disputes on The Second Amendment Has Currently Abide Lately

Contemporary disputes on the Second Amendment has currently abide lately. This amendment central point on the protection to keep and bear arms in protection of our private right as an individual, and the right that can apply only through militia organizations. This amendment strikes me the most, because of our recent school shootings. A generation long before us were convinced that the government wanted to use soldiers to afflict the people. A suggestion was made by English history, paying full-time paid troops can control the risk. The government focuses on creating armies to protect the country and fight foreign countries. Although, for other emergencies or invasions we have typical civilians who carry their own weapon and have some military training called militia to save us. The Revolutionary War gave a preview that militia effort was not made for national defenses, but the commencement of training an army for the war might not always have time. Therefore the Constitutional Convention believed the federal government should manage the militia and free authority to setup peacetime standing armies.

The new proposed Constitution caused a shift power from the states to the federal government. The proposed Constitution gave the Anti Federalist to fight for what they thought was getting taken from them. The principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The federalist believed that the fears of the new principles were disproportionate because our military forces are very strong and it would be unlikely for the American people that were armed to conquer them.

Two shared beliefs that the Federalist and Antifederalist had in common was there was a legal authority over the militia and the army by the federal government that the new constitution proposed. Second, there shall not be any law to disarm the citizenry even as the federal government. The only disagreement that the two have is if armed citizens could sufficiently inhibit from action federal oppression. The Anti-federalists did not receive any acknowledgment from the Second Amendment, because it would of ample change to the constitution. They wanted to cut short the military power of the federal government. Yet, all the agreements on the power of the federal government should not violate the right of civilians to keep and bear arms, just as much of not taking away exercise of religion or freedom of speech.

Since 1791, the traditional militia started to not be in use. Since much changed has occurred state-based militia were slowly turning into the federal military structure. Therefore the eighteenth-century armies became weak, and the new Nation’s military establishments have become extremely powerful. Political rhetorical dictatorship is still on the uprise, but our armed forces are so powerful that Americans don’t fear armed populace can defeat them in a war. While keeping the same weapons that civilians would need to serve in the militia they would keep in their household in the eighteenth century. Now in the modern days, soldiers have better-equipped weapons than what us civilians would have now in their homes. Although they still keep bear arms to themselves in self-defense, hunting, or other forms of games. Blacks were not allowed to have any possession of firearms and under government rolls, and militia weapons were commonly registered. Now the laws have changed and gun laws are stronger and powerful. Another development the legal has changed was the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. The states handed guns out to who they thought was okay, and the Second Amendment only applied to the federal government. In this case is where the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to come in and give the Privileges or Immunities Clause to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms from infringement by the states, the Supreme Court rejected this interpretation in “United States v. Cruikshank” (1876).

Just before now, the judiciary treated the Second Amendment as if it was nothing. However, the “District of Columbia v. Heller” (2008) render null and violated a federal law that didn’t allow almost all civilians from having handguns in the national capital by the Supreme Court. The language and history of the Second Amendment showed that majority rule protects an individual to have a weapon for their own defense, not a right of the state to maintain the militia. In the “McDonald v. City of Chicago” (2010) the state was told they couldn’t own a handgun by ⅘ vote. On judicial authoritative example under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause the four-justice relied on it. Justice Thomas rejected those precedents in favor of reliances on the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Also, all five members new that the second amendment was protecting the fourteenth amendment.

With Heller and McDonald, they basically ruled that the government shouldn’t ban the possession of handguns by civilians in their home. Heller slightly just suggested that a list of presumptively lawful regulation. Such as felons and mentally ill are banned from carrying a firearm, and carrying a firearm in sensitive places. Many issues remain open, and many courts disagreed with one another, involving a restriction on carrying weapons in public.

Cite this page