The second amendment was one of the original rights added to the constitution in the United States Constitution Bill of Rights. It was accepted into law in December 1791. The law states, “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 means that the people have the right to carry weapons and join in militias. The amendment was added as a compromise between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The law was added mainly for two reasons. For one, the American people had just gained independence from Britain using weapons (Brooks). It was also passed as it was seen as a way that would enable the people to take power again if the government
…show more content…
The case began when Edward Peruta was denied a concealed carry permit in San Diego County under the pretense that he did not have a predefined, “good cause,” (Gore). Peruta lost the case. Now, I will examine why Peruta lost the case. For one, it was decided that Peruta did not have a, “good cause.” San Diego Law required that the applicant had a, “good cause,” and that Peruta’s cause of self-defense was not sufficient (Gore). It was decided that this was constitutional because it only barred certain people from not using weapons. Another reason Peruta lost, is because it was seen that the Second Amendment did not guarantee and individual’s right to carry a concealed weapon in public. It was decided that the Second Amendment granted the right to bear arms, but not necessarily carry concealed arms in public (Gore). This meant that the Second Amendment was essentially irrelevant in this case. Another reason that Peruta lost the case, was because his Second Amendment Rights were not being violated. It was said that Peruta already carried a handgun in his own home, meaning that he had the right to bear arms, just not in public spaces (Gore). This essentially meant that there had been no wrongdoing. So in the end, Peruta lost the case because his Second Amendment Rights weren’t being violated, that you don’t always have the right to carry arms in public, and that needing a predefined, “good cause,” is
The case began when Edward Peruta was denied a concealed carry permit in San Diego County under the pretense that he did not have a predefined, “good cause,” (Gore). Peruta lost the case. Now, I will examine why Peruta lost the case. For one, it was decided that Peruta did not have a, “good cause.” San Diego Law required that the applicant had a, “good cause,” and that Peruta’s cause of self-defense was not sufficient (Gore). It was decided that this was constitutional because it only barred certain people from not using weapons. Another reason Peruta lost, is because it was seen that the Second Amendment did not guarantee and individual’s right to carry a concealed weapon in public. It was decided that the Second Amendment granted the right to bear arms, but not necessarily carry concealed arms in public (Gore). This meant that the Second Amendment was essentially irrelevant in this case. Another reason that Peruta lost the case, was because his Second Amendment Rights were not being violated. It was said that Peruta already carried a handgun in his own home, meaning that he had the right to bear arms, just not in public spaces (Gore). This essentially meant that there had been no wrongdoing. So in the end, Peruta lost the case because his Second Amendment Rights weren’t being violated, that you don’t always have the right to carry arms in public, and that needing a predefined, “good cause,” is