The Consequences Of Gun Control And The Second Amendment

996 Words 4 Pages
Gun Control and the Second Amendment According to Schulman (1991), the text of the Second Amendment of the US Constitutions reads as follows: “a correctly structured militia, for purposes of state security; the right of the citizens to have and to carry arms shall not be challenged.” This is a paraphrased version of what is contained in the original constitutional document. Nonetheless, it captures the spirit of the constitution regarding the issue of guns and their possession thereof. According to Chemerinsky (2004), anti-gun control supporters have often emphasized both clauses within this sentence; that gun ownership is essential for the establishment of a well-regulated militia that can be called upon by the state to defend its freedom; and that the ownership of guns and their bearing thereof, is inherently provided for in the second clause. However, supporters of gun control, as Chemerensky (2004) continues to assert, claim that the human cost of guns, in comparison to its legal application, is unbearable; that too many deaths and crime result from the unequivocal ownership of guns. This provides the establishment for the question; are gun control measures, laws and intonations in violation of the right by private citizens to bears arms …show more content…
It is very clear and stated soundly, that the right to bear arms by the people shall not be infringed upon. Therefore, this paper establishes that gun ownership is indeed an inherent right. The application of gun control measures by the courts, therefore, should be based not only on the first clause of the text of the Second Amendment, but on both clauses, which are separately interpreted. Therefore the decision by certain courts to determine that civilians vacate the right to own guns independent of the state is unfounded and

Related Documents