The right to bear arms in the United States is and has been one of the most debated topics involving the constitution. In the past century, countries from all around the world have been banning or heavily restricting access to firearms. England has restricted access to semi-automatic rifles that are abundant in the United States and Australia it is almost impossible to get one’s hands on a pistol. So if countries like Australia and England have laws making it hard to get guns, than why hasn’t the United States? The answer is because of the 2nd Amendment in the United States Constitution, which 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”
…show more content…
The Supreme Court ruled in a five to four decision affirming what the Court of Appeals stated. Speaking for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia concluded that the Second Amendment provides citizens with an “an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self defense within the home” (NCBI). The Court also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited. The possession of firearms by criminals and the mentally ill, possessing a firearm in a school area or government buildings, and selling arms that are not considered “common” are all illegal. The handgun ban, as well as the trigger-lock requirement were all considered unconstitutional because it would be impossible to defend themselves in their home (Cornell). Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Bryer wrote two separate dissents that were both joined by the judges who ruled against the majority. Steven’s dissent argued that the Second Amendment targeted only state militias, while Breyer’s dissent targeted the increase of urban gun deaths as evidence for allowing a gun ban. The long case of District of Columbia v. Heller is now …show more content…
Chicago ban of firearms is accomplished by the prohibition of possession of most unregistered handguns. Oak Park flat out prohibits the possession of all handguns. The lawsuit was brought to the Northern District of Illinois where McDonald would challenge these laws. His argument stated “that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms should apply to states and municipalities through either the Due Process Clause or the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” (LII). However, the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case quite promptly. He applied for appeal, but the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Seventh Circuit stated in their dismissal “Heller dealt with a law enacted under the authority of the national government,” while the Illinois laws at issue were enacted by Chicago and Oak Park, “subordinate bodies of a state” (LII). The Court of Appeals suggested that McDonald take the question of whether or not the right to bear arms is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment to the Supreme Court, as they cannot decide that. McDonald petitioned for certiorari, which was granted on September 30th, 2009. McDonald’s argument was that because cities like Chicago have such high crime rate, the citizens should be able to use their right to bear arms to
The Supreme Court ruled in a five to four decision affirming what the Court of Appeals stated. Speaking for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia concluded that the Second Amendment provides citizens with an “an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self defense within the home” (NCBI). The Court also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited. The possession of firearms by criminals and the mentally ill, possessing a firearm in a school area or government buildings, and selling arms that are not considered “common” are all illegal. The handgun ban, as well as the trigger-lock requirement were all considered unconstitutional because it would be impossible to defend themselves in their home (Cornell). Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Bryer wrote two separate dissents that were both joined by the judges who ruled against the majority. Steven’s dissent argued that the Second Amendment targeted only state militias, while Breyer’s dissent targeted the increase of urban gun deaths as evidence for allowing a gun ban. The long case of District of Columbia v. Heller is now …show more content…
Chicago ban of firearms is accomplished by the prohibition of possession of most unregistered handguns. Oak Park flat out prohibits the possession of all handguns. The lawsuit was brought to the Northern District of Illinois where McDonald would challenge these laws. His argument stated “that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms should apply to states and municipalities through either the Due Process Clause or the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” (LII). However, the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case quite promptly. He applied for appeal, but the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Seventh Circuit stated in their dismissal “Heller dealt with a law enacted under the authority of the national government,” while the Illinois laws at issue were enacted by Chicago and Oak Park, “subordinate bodies of a state” (LII). The Court of Appeals suggested that McDonald take the question of whether or not the right to bear arms is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment to the Supreme Court, as they cannot decide that. McDonald petitioned for certiorari, which was granted on September 30th, 2009. McDonald’s argument was that because cities like Chicago have such high crime rate, the citizens should be able to use their right to bear arms to