Federalism and Gun Control
Gun control in the United States has been a controversial topic for a number of years. The different ways in which one can interpret the constitution plays a big role in the controversy between whether certain gun control laws violate your civil liberties as citizens of the United States. There have been numerous court cases dealing with gun control, with some of the major including: District of Columbia Vs. Heller, McDonald Vs. Chicago, and Peruta Vs. County of San Diego. Because of federalism, and both the national and state governments having certain rights, there becomes a level of disagreement when state and federal gun laws do not necessarily agree. This essay will address the several ways in which gun control …show more content…
Heller, McDonald Vs. Chicago, and Peruta Vs. County of San Diego. In the court case of the District of Columbia Vs. Heller there was a 5-4 vote that changed the District of Columbia Law that prohibited citizens to carry handguns. The case leaned upon the Second Amendment of the Constitution and the ruling of the court was that the Second Amendment allows the citizens the right to bear arms for “traditionally lawful purposes” such as self defense in the home, and the court believed the District of Columbia Law infringed upon those civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Similarly, in the court case of McDonald Vs. Chicago, there was a Chicago law that banned handguns in one's home, but once again the court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees this right and that the law infringed upon it. In addition to the Second Amendment, they also referred to the due process clause which states, “N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” This means that a state cannot infringe upon the immunities and grants that the Constitution guarantees U.S …show more content…
It draws upon the questions of what powers the national government has versus the state government, and if any of these laws, federal or state, infringe upon the rights of citizens. There are also many court cases that deal with gun control and gun laws and many of them draw upon the civil liberties granted and guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. How one interprets the Constitution is often the determinant of cases and what causes the extreme controversy of this topic. Because one can draw from many aspects of the Constitution, it can make it difficult to really pinpoint a decision and not raise questions of whether this decision is just or not. For example, The Second Amendment grants citizens the right to bear arms, but the Commerce Clause grants congress the right to make sure that interstate commerce is not negatively affected by any sort of danger or threat that may affect it. This means that if somehow possessing a handgun negatively affects interstate commerce, then congress can pass a law which enacts some sort of law on handguns, that in turn protects interstate commerce. The question that arises here is to what extent congress will go to argue that guns do affect interstate commerce, as seen in the court case United States Vs. Lopez. Clearly there are several sides and interpretations to the Constitution and how it should be applied to gun control
Gun control in the United States has been a controversial topic for a number of years. The different ways in which one can interpret the constitution plays a big role in the controversy between whether certain gun control laws violate your civil liberties as citizens of the United States. There have been numerous court cases dealing with gun control, with some of the major including: District of Columbia Vs. Heller, McDonald Vs. Chicago, and Peruta Vs. County of San Diego. Because of federalism, and both the national and state governments having certain rights, there becomes a level of disagreement when state and federal gun laws do not necessarily agree. This essay will address the several ways in which gun control …show more content…
Heller, McDonald Vs. Chicago, and Peruta Vs. County of San Diego. In the court case of the District of Columbia Vs. Heller there was a 5-4 vote that changed the District of Columbia Law that prohibited citizens to carry handguns. The case leaned upon the Second Amendment of the Constitution and the ruling of the court was that the Second Amendment allows the citizens the right to bear arms for “traditionally lawful purposes” such as self defense in the home, and the court believed the District of Columbia Law infringed upon those civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Similarly, in the court case of McDonald Vs. Chicago, there was a Chicago law that banned handguns in one's home, but once again the court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees this right and that the law infringed upon it. In addition to the Second Amendment, they also referred to the due process clause which states, “N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” This means that a state cannot infringe upon the immunities and grants that the Constitution guarantees U.S …show more content…
It draws upon the questions of what powers the national government has versus the state government, and if any of these laws, federal or state, infringe upon the rights of citizens. There are also many court cases that deal with gun control and gun laws and many of them draw upon the civil liberties granted and guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. How one interprets the Constitution is often the determinant of cases and what causes the extreme controversy of this topic. Because one can draw from many aspects of the Constitution, it can make it difficult to really pinpoint a decision and not raise questions of whether this decision is just or not. For example, The Second Amendment grants citizens the right to bear arms, but the Commerce Clause grants congress the right to make sure that interstate commerce is not negatively affected by any sort of danger or threat that may affect it. This means that if somehow possessing a handgun negatively affects interstate commerce, then congress can pass a law which enacts some sort of law on handguns, that in turn protects interstate commerce. The question that arises here is to what extent congress will go to argue that guns do affect interstate commerce, as seen in the court case United States Vs. Lopez. Clearly there are several sides and interpretations to the Constitution and how it should be applied to gun control