Interpreting The Second Amendment Essay

1417 Words 6 Pages
Interpreting the Second Amendment
In the Bill of Rights, the citizens are given the privilege to own firearms for their personal protection. However, the Second Amendment seemed to take away this right by adding the concept of “organized militia.” In Columbia v. Heller, the court held that individuals could possess firearms without having to be the members of a militia. However, judge Stevens gave a dissent stating that all judgments should be made with the direction of past cases and court decisions. His main argument came from the fact that gun control laws had not been made unconstitutional. Secondly, in mentioning the militia, the amendment implied state owned military. Thirdly, the collective right should be interpreted relying on the precedent. On his part, Schultz alludes to the reliance of past authors on the issue to provide the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment. In his argument, he notes that in a free state, a militia that may one day fight a tyrannical government should be present. His argument implies the existence of the main government and another military unit whose purpose is to check the activities of the main government. Through utilitarian approach, this paper seeks to prove that Schultz thought of a free state is flawed, while Stevens’ desire to depend on precedence is more beneficial to the citizens and the stability of the country.
The moral actions or people keep the society together. One can define a moral action in various ways with one…

Related Documents