“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.” This of course is the second amendment in the United States constitution. As of the start of this research paper, the way I would interpret this amendment is that all citizens of the United States are guaranteed the right to own, carry, and use firearms. With this in mind, it is my opinion that any laws that would be put in place to keep citizens from possessing a firearm would be unconstitutional. At the conclusion of this essay I hope to affirm my opinion or change it in a way that helps me to make better stances when it comes to the interpretation of not only amendments but other laws as well.
…show more content…
Cruikshank. This first interpretation of the second amendment believed that “The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.” Meaning that the states could decree whatever laws they saw fit regarding the interpretation of any of the amendments put in place. This case came about during the reconstruction era starting in about 1872, with a massacre that occurred at Colfax Louisiana which took place on April 13th in 1873, and ending with the ruling by the Supreme Court in March of 1876. It was this court case that would set in motion the fight for gun rights at the Supreme Court level. The result of this case shows how early gun control laws were handled, states could make their own interpretations on the meaning of amendments. Which led the south and many parts of the north to disallow minorities the rights given to them in the United States Constitution. Shortly before this occurred Texas legislature banned carrying guns outside the home which was aimed largely at controlling blacks during the reconstruction era, this ban interestingly enough this lasted up until 1995 when Texas adopted the concealed carry …show more content…
Miller in 1939. In this case Jack Miller and his friend Frank Layton were tried for possession of a weapon that did not adhere to the regulations put in place by the National Firearms Act. “Inside their car, police found an unregistered sawed-off shotgun.” It was this evidence that brought the case to its first test. Hiram Heartsill Ragon was their trial judge, despite the fact that he was a heavy advocate for gun control he dismissed the two. It is thought that this was what destined the case to be appealed at the Supreme Court. Miller and Layton of course disappeared after they were released and were not present for the Supreme Court case, this led the lawyer who was appointed by the judge to represent them to feel no obligation to their trial. Because of this the lawyer suggested that the justices should decide the case based on the government’s brief.4 This led to the unanimous decision that the National Firearms Act did not violate the Second
Cruikshank. This first interpretation of the second amendment believed that “The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.” Meaning that the states could decree whatever laws they saw fit regarding the interpretation of any of the amendments put in place. This case came about during the reconstruction era starting in about 1872, with a massacre that occurred at Colfax Louisiana which took place on April 13th in 1873, and ending with the ruling by the Supreme Court in March of 1876. It was this court case that would set in motion the fight for gun rights at the Supreme Court level. The result of this case shows how early gun control laws were handled, states could make their own interpretations on the meaning of amendments. Which led the south and many parts of the north to disallow minorities the rights given to them in the United States Constitution. Shortly before this occurred Texas legislature banned carrying guns outside the home which was aimed largely at controlling blacks during the reconstruction era, this ban interestingly enough this lasted up until 1995 when Texas adopted the concealed carry …show more content…
Miller in 1939. In this case Jack Miller and his friend Frank Layton were tried for possession of a weapon that did not adhere to the regulations put in place by the National Firearms Act. “Inside their car, police found an unregistered sawed-off shotgun.” It was this evidence that brought the case to its first test. Hiram Heartsill Ragon was their trial judge, despite the fact that he was a heavy advocate for gun control he dismissed the two. It is thought that this was what destined the case to be appealed at the Supreme Court. Miller and Layton of course disappeared after they were released and were not present for the Supreme Court case, this led the lawyer who was appointed by the judge to represent them to feel no obligation to their trial. Because of this the lawyer suggested that the justices should decide the case based on the government’s brief.4 This led to the unanimous decision that the National Firearms Act did not violate the Second