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 …show more content…
The report by BBC shows that guns in the wrong hands are responsible for the deaths in the country. This means that in the event that a person needs to own a gun, he or she must undergo a thorough vetting. Stevens’ emphasis on precedence provides an opportunity to reflect on the consequences of past decisions. As much as the interpretation of the Second Amendment may rely on current facts, the past serves as guidance. This guidance should always reflect the desire of the people and their welfare. In essence, Stevens is championing a thorough analysis of facts before these facts being applied in a case. In the end, the definition of militias as state owned and the presence of gun control laws seems to ensure the security and fairness in the United States more than free ownership of guns.
Interpretation of texts basing on precedence gives one the opportunity to see how the outcome of a verdict will look like. Essentially, it enhances the knowledge an individual already has about a particular situation. More knowledge implies that a better interpretation is in the offing. For this reason, acting on precedence is more beneficial because it expounds on past events for the benefit of future happenings hence reducing the incidence of
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 …show more content…
The report by BBC shows that guns in the wrong hands are responsible for the deaths in the country. This means that in the event that a person needs to own a gun, he or she must undergo a thorough vetting. Stevens’ emphasis on precedence provides an opportunity to reflect on the consequences of past decisions. As much as the interpretation of the Second Amendment may rely on current facts, the past serves as guidance. This guidance should always reflect the desire of the people and their welfare. In essence, Stevens is championing a thorough analysis of facts before these facts being applied in a case. In the end, the definition of militias as state owned and the presence of gun control laws seems to ensure the security and fairness in the United States more than free ownership of guns.
Interpretation of texts basing on precedence gives one the opportunity to see how the outcome of a verdict will look like. Essentially, it enhances the knowledge an individual already has about a particular situation. More knowledge implies that a better interpretation is in the offing. For this reason, acting on precedence is more beneficial because it expounds on past events for the benefit of future happenings hence reducing the incidence of