IndexHistory of the Second AmendmentWriters' understanding of the right to own firearmsExamples of when and where the Principle was used History of the Second AmendmentThe Second Amendment of the United States Constitution was primarily carried out to protect people's right to keep or bear arms. The Supreme Court gives this right to individuals but not to a militia group. However, the ruling is clear limiting and prohibiting the ownership of firearms and related devices. The implementation of the amendment was adopted in 1791 and was among the first ten amendments that made up the Bill of Rights. The amendment was partly borrowed from the British version of the same relating to the ownership and use of weapons. In this case, it was described as an auxiliary right aimed at supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the role of citizens in general. The purpose of this article is to analyze this Second Amendment by addressing several questions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The Second Amendment includes provisions under which the government can manage the emergence of militias that may abuse the right to bear arms. However, the existence of such provisions serves to ensure that citizens' right to own guns is protected. The authors of the amendment had various reasons for making the amendment. They stated that it was necessary to have a disciplined and regulated citizenry that bore arms. However, to establish such an act, it was necessary to issue certain regulations regulating the defense of the country. Additionally, the authors stated that while there has been extensive legislative action with respect to the regulation, ownership, and transportation of firearms. However, prior to the amendment there was no final resolution by the courts of the right that the amendment possessed. Theories opposing the amendment had oversimplified the term “individual rights.” In this case, the authors' purpose was to address the protection of gun ownership, possession, and transportation. It is worth mentioning that the authors understood the need to protect states in terms of their authority to maintain a formal and organized militia system. The amendment aims to strip federal action, but not to extend it to the federal state. The Supreme Court gave effect to the dependent clause of the amendment. However, it is only significant if it tested congressional ratification against the constitutional restriction. Well-regulated militias have the right to bear and keep weapons, and these should not be given to organized groups. In this case, the authors of the amendment understood that it would allow only members of the official militia to possess firearms. Furthermore, they believed that the national command could not abolish state militias. The pioneering court case involving the Second Amendment was filed in 1876 during the case of USA v. Cruikshank. It involved members of a certain group denying standard liberties to black citizens. Some of these rights included the right to assembly and the right to bear arms. In its ruling, the Court stated that the right of everyone to bear arms is not provided for in the Constitution. However, only ten years later did the court uphold the ruling in Presser v. Illinois. In this case, the ruling held that the national government could ban gun ownership but not the states. Furthermore, the issue was revisited again in 1894 in Miller v. Texas. In this case, Miller had suedsued the Texas state government arguing that he was allowed to own a gun under the protection of the Second Amendment. However, the court struck down the argument, saying the amendment overrides state law, such as Texas restrictions on carrying concealed and dangerous weapons. From the three cases; THEThe authors of the amendment consolidated their interpretation regarding this clause in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, the amendment does not prevent local governments from making their own rules on gun ownership. Until recently, in US v. Miller, there was no verdict on the Second Amendment. In the case, Miller and Layton were transporting unregistered handguns across state lines and had to be arrested. These had been prohibited since the National Firearms Act came into force half a decade earlier. According to the defendant, the act violated his Second Amendment rights. The court denied this notion, stating that it lacked specific evidence to demonstrate that possession of a handgun during this period had any real bearing on the effectiveness of a properly regulated militia. Additionally, in 2008, the court revisited the issue again in Columbia V. Heller. The case revolved around Dick Heller, who was an authorized Washington, DC official. In this case, he challenged the ban on firearms in the national capital. It marked the first time the Supreme Court issued a ruling that, despite state laws, individuals, not members of the state militia, can own guns as they wish. Ideally, the amendment promoted citizens' discretion in owning and bearing arms as long as they did not use them as militias. Furthermore, it also involves the implementation of such a weapon for traditionally based lawful purposes, including self-protection within one's home. Therefore, the Second Amendment protects citizens from possessing firearms as long as they are not connected to any militia activity. The introductory section of the amendment announces the purpose of the amendment. However, it does not limit or expand the boundaries of the second part involving the operative clause. In this clause, an individual has the power to possess and use an arm diligently. There is some concordance between the preliminary clause and the court's interpretation of the clause. The war over who should own or bear guns has sparked a series of cases in America for more than a hundred years now. The common defense has been interpreted as a scapegoat employed by some people to hide under after committing atrocities and manslaughters. For critics, the bill is nothing more than what they call “a lack of value for human life.” However, for this long and heated debate over the Second Amendment to end, people in support of the amendment and critics must come to a common agreement. Both parties are in antagonism on two fundamental things which prove that the two parties are right[9]. The primary concern of critics is the well-being of every individual in society. On the other hand, supporters of the Second Amendment argue that it guarantees the well-being of citizens by ensuring that everyone has the right to protect themselves. Looking at the amendment from these two angles we can draw an inference that could help close the debate. Efforts by both sides to consider each other's opinions are the only way forward in the matter as no one can be called completely wrong. Writers' Understanding of the Right to Own Firearms The idea of ​​owning a gun was embraced by the society of the time that the amendment was passed into law. The reason for this was the increase in crime casesobserved between the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century. However, over time, the Second Amendment authorizing an individual to carry a firearm for self-defense has been widely criticized by many voices with contrary opinions. Among these many voices, several writers have substantially addressed the issue, mostly critics. According to a recent article published on the Godfather political site, the writer supports and conveys the idea that with a gun in hand, then criminals are very reasonable people. The author adds that the Second Amendment will likely protect lawbreakers more than it protects civilians. He argues the Second Amendment gives guns to criminals instead of ensuring they don't fall into the wrong hands. In the article, the author mentions the opinions of former NYPD detective, Wallace Zeins, all someone needs in case of an attack is car keys and wasp spray. Better yet, it points out that there are even better choices you can make to improve your security. For example, the state-of-the-art alarm system, which is safer than having a gun lying around the house. While there are cases where wasp spray hasn't worked, there are better choices than advocating gun carrying according to the article. In another article recently published in the New York Times, the Second Amendment may also end up causing civil problems in the future. The war on racism has long been a relevant issue in American history. However, according to the New York Times article, the right to bear arms supported by the Second Amendment could have caused critical issues in the country's racism situation. Over the past four years, there have been many reported cases of white people shooting black people and vice versa, then claiming it was an act of self-defense. According to Waldman, the president of New York University's Brennan Center of Justice has made two important discoveries. He did this after returning to the original wording of the amendment. One of his findings was particularly surprising. The assumption made by the founders when the Second Amendment became law was that all men should always serve in the militias as was the case in those days. This therefore shows that the promoters of the law had no intention of ensuring that weapons end up in the hands of ordinary civilians who could end up hurting themselves or others. The Second Aspect Waldman describes that the second part of the Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear firearms” was in reference to military defense and not the defense of a fellow citizen. In an article written about Helen Keller in the New York Times, it is clear that when she was alive, human rights were necessary. The judge in charge of his case said that every life is precious, no matter how useless and individual it may seem. Helen Keller's case demonstrated to society that every human life has value. The article also establishes that every human being has the right to life, which gun ownership does not promise. Examples of when and where the Principle has been used People have the right to bear arms in the United States. The Second Amendment to the Constitution protects this right. However, the right is not unlimited but regulated. State and local governments are regulated similarly to the federal government. The Second Amendment was passed on December 15, 1791. It was based on the right to bear arms. Supports the rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression. Furthermore, it reinforces the civic duty to defend the state. The amendment was part of the Bill of Rights. The purpose of this article is to show cases involving the amendment. One of thecases was United States v. Cruikshank in 1876. The case arose during the Reconstruction era due to gubernatorial elections. It is worth mentioning that the elections were strongly opposed and this caused a lot of social tension. For example, in 1873 an armed militia of white Democrats attacked black Republican freedmen. Some blacks were armed and trying to protect themselves. The freedmen had gathered to resist a democratic capture attempt. About a hundred black people were killed in the massacre. There were also cases brought against members of the white mob under the Enforcement Act of 1870. This act prevented two or more people from denying someone their constitutional rights. Further charges included preventing freedmen from freely collecting and possessing weapons. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause apply only to the State. He therefore rejected the reasons of the European-American men. Prior to this ruling, the Court had held that the right of assembly should not reduce the powers of the State vis-à-vis its citizens. Furthermore, the Constitution does not provide for the right to possess firearms. The Supreme Court further held that citizens have a right to both governments, including the national government and the state. In 1877 federal troops were withdrawn from the South. This led to flawed and violent elections because whites fought to keep blacks from voting. Another case involving the Second Amendment was United States v. Miller. In 1994 (NFA), under the National Firearms Act, the case became a criminal case. The indictment charged him with possessing an unregistered 12 gauge double barrel shotgun. The defendants were Jack Miller and Frank Layton who were carrying the weapon. One supporter argued that the National Firearms Act is a way to usurp police power reserved for states and is therefore unconstitutional. He further offended the inhibition of the amendment to the constitution. The court rejected the accusation and upheld the objections. The court did not take into account the fact that the described short gun had a solid bearing on the efficiency of a well-organized militia. Therefore, the Court could not determine that the Constitution gave citizens the power to own such a weapon. Miller was a bank robber. He could not hire a lawyer to appeal to the Supreme Court but rather disappear. The government's immediate appeal ensured his victory because he wouldn't even show up. On 30 March 1939 the Government appealed against the court's decision. It argued that the NFA was a revenue collection measure. So it fell under the authority of the Treasury Department. The Government also alleged that the defendants had used the gun in interstate commerce. He further argued that this constitutional provision protects the possession of military-grade weapons used in planned militias. The final defense was that the weapon had never been used in any militia network. Furthermore, on May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court ruled that carrying an unregistered rifle was constitutional. Furthermore, the court said it did not violate the Second Amendment. The case of District of Columbia v. Heller is another case in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. The District of Columbia prohibits the possession of firearms without a license. Further restricts handgun registration. However, it allows the police chief to issue 1-year licenses. Residents are required to have legal, unloaded firearms. Heller, a Washington police officer, applied to register a gun. However, the District refused. He filed a complaint based on the latteramendment to oppose restrictions on the possession of firearms in the home. He argued that the clause protects a person's right to possess firearms. Therefore, insisting that the ban on firearms and the requirement to keep them non-functional violated that right. The DC also held that the operative clauses of the amendment allow people to possess firearms. He made it clear that the firearms ban and trigger requirement limits a whole group of weapons that people choose for self-defense. Furthermore, the preliminary clause is in line with the court's elucidation of the operative clause. The militia was composed of men physically capable of acting for defense. The response was to deny Congress the power to curtail people's historic right to bear arms to preserve the ideal militia. The Supreme Court declared the notions of the Firearms Control Regulation unconstitutional. Dick Heller, who was a licensed police officer, did not have permission to carry a weapon into his home. He had approached the National Rifle Association to envision lifting the gun ban. The NRA refused and he decided to appeal. The appeals court held that he had standing to sue for relief. The court ruled that firearms would not be banned in the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court made a decision in McDonald v. Chicago where individual states were deemed to have the right to bear arms as deemed by the provisions of the Second Amendment. The decision gave closure to the District v. Heller verdict that was unclear. The Court of Appeal first upheld the ban on handguns and other rules affecting hunting rifles. However, oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010 and June 28, 2010; the Supreme Court rejected the Seventh Circuit's decision. The arguments held that the Second Amendment was included in the Fourteenth Amendment. It therefore protected the right of private individuals to possess firearms. In McDonald v. Chicago, a resident named McDonald claimed that his home had been broken into five times. He feared that gangs and drug dealers were operating in his neighborhood and decided to purchase a gun for personal protection. However, due to gun ownership requirements and the ban on handguns, he could not own one. He then teamed up with three other Chicago residents to file a complaint that became McDonald v. Chicago. He challenged the law because it reduced his chances of owning a gun since he could not register his gun. This influenced a broad ban on firearms. It also contested the requirement to register weapons and re-registered them every year. It was important to enforce the provisions of this against the state through selective incorporation. He asked the court to dismiss the slaughterhouse cases. Slaughterhouse indicated that the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges Clause was not applicable to the States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has declared that the constitutional clause protects the right to bear arms. Furthermore, it stated that personal self-defense was the “central component” of the right to own a gun. The Helen Keller and McDonald's court decisions did not establish gun freedom. The case recognized the amendment's powers to safeguard citizens' rights to own firearms as long as they were used for traditionally lawful purposes. The McDonalds case (2010) demonstrated that the court did not prove the existence of gun laws. Justice concluded that there were limits to the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment does not.