ipl-logo

Dick Heller's Violation Of The Second Amendment

852 Words4 Pages

Today, on March 18th, 2008 we are discussing whether the District of Columbia’s has violated the Second Amendment with laws that prohibit handguns. I contend that these restrictions are not a violation of the Second Amendment. Specifically, I will address how the constitution relates to Dick Heller and the restrictions. The District of Columbia’s restrictions prohibit handguns from being licensed and brought into any home. In addition, if the firearm is licensed it must be “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities”. Basically, firearms that enter the home cannot have ammo in them and or must be in secure gun storage. Dick Heller, …show more content…

The Constitution under the Second Amendment clearly states that 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." The keywords in this quote are “militia” , “free State” and “bear arms”, which clearly validate that the intended purpose of this right was to be for the militia and national security. This was not Heller’s intention when he requested a personal at home handgun license. Heller therefore cannot use the Second Amendment to legally justify bringing this issue to the Supreme …show more content…

Because they are interchangeable, this proves Heller’s use of the Second Amendment is invalid. He clearly was not going to use the handgun for military service. The fact that the Second Amendment does not protect Heller is further validated by Madison’s draft of the constitution where he included a clause that stated “"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country ". These clearly proves that the constitution only protect the rights of the militia to use guns on the basis on national security. Heller’s license to have it in his home cannot affect the nation’s security, but only his own, making this defense flawed (Chicago

Show More
Related
143 Words | 1 Pages

This law is a clear violation of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The wording of the Second Amendment is clear and does not mention anything regarding regulations. We as the court must ignore the

Read More
604 Words | 3 Pages

Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Once Heller received his denial, he took to the District of Columbia stating that they violated his Second Amendment right to keep a functional firearm in his home without a license. The district court dismissed the complaint. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep firearms in the home for the purpose of self-defense, and the District of Columbia’s requirement that firearms kept in the home be nonfunctional violated that right.

Read More
823 Words | 4 Pages

When the U. S. Supreme Court issued its seminal rulings in Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010), finding that the Second Amendment does in fact guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms that must be recognized by the states, many Americans felt like the issue of the Second Amendment had finally been settled in America. Unfortunately, as we would quickly see in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere -- it was only the latest chapter in what has become an endless battle for the natural right of self-defense. Take, for instance, the District of Columbia’s post-Heller “fix” to its unconstitutional gun laws -- forcing citizens to obtain a license to carry firearms outside their home, but failing to provide any mechanism by which to obtain a license. In other jurisdictions, including Illinois and Seattle, officials attempted to create de facto gun bans by increasing the cost of ownership through taxes and fees, regardless of the impact on minority citizens.

Read More
1014 Words | 5 Pages

As we have already established, judicial restraint is exercised when justices work to make sure public policies are not changed, keeping laws and statutes just as they have been; by interpreting the United States Constitution literally, taking every word at face value, justices remain solely in their roles as justices without assuming the role of a policy maker. In District of Columbia v Heller, the justices of the Supreme Court took the literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment into account when deciding the case. The 2nd Amendment 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.” Justices deciding District of Columbia v Heller believed that “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” trumped the segment of the Amendment that states that the right to bear arms was necessary in keeping a militia; it was made clear that “the right of the people” in the 2nd Amendment referred to citizens’ individual rights to keep firearms, not the states’ rights to keep a militia as was determined in United States v Miller. Though this interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by the Roberts Court was different than that of the justices who decided United States v Miller, the way in which the amendment was interpreted made sure that no changes were made to existing laws or policies, i.e., the Bill of Rights.

Read More
1113 Words | 5 Pages

Heller, in which Breyer disagreed with the majority and believed that the District of Colombia, did in fact have full permission to limit handgun laws. In his dissenting opinion, being the pragmatist that he is, Breyer states that the Second Amendment only provides context for militia-related, not self-related defense and concludes this, in turn, means that this amendment does not disable government intervention in pursuing these laws. Because Breyer is not an originalist of any sort, his dissenting opinion is one that tells of this nature and the belief that the Amendments do not provide

Read More
1721 Words | 7 Pages

The Gun Lobby and the National Rifle Association mistakenly believe that the Second Amendment not only guarantees an individual’s right to own firearms, but also limits the making and enforcement of any laws limiting the use of and ownership of guns. There is no constitutional law that prevents the government from limiting personal access to firearms through legal means. The argument over the right to bear arms should not be about whether the right belongs to the people; but rather, it should address the purpose and scope of that right. According to Dennis Henigan (2005), “Arms-bearing in the well-regulated militia was a duty owed to the government, not a personal right to be exercised against the government,” (D 21). The right to keep and bear arms is basically different from the other guarantees in the Bill of Rights.

Read More
446 Words | 2 Pages

The second amendment states that the citizens of America have the right to keep, and bear arms; the government is, without a doubt, in violation of this right (Tushnet, Eakins, 2012). By restricting the type of firearms Americans can purchase,

Read More
1025 Words | 5 Pages

The meaning, the purpose, and the need for the Second Amendment at the time are debatable. The amendment, as written in 1790, is stated as follows: 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. Adopted on December 15, 1791, these 27 words have been used as the main kindling for the ongoing national debate on gun control. The intended meaning behind these words has been debated in Supreme Court cases such as United States v. Cruikshank, wherein the Court stated, “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” Because of the perspectively interpretational manner in which the amendment was written, it is not clear whether the constitution protects gun ownership for the purpose of maintaining a civilian militia, or for the purpose of protecting individual gun

Read More
745 Words | 3 Pages

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution 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.” The forefather’s intention in giving this right to the citizens of the United States was to protect and ensure that one was capable to defend himself from the government and be free of the military and keep the government in check if it were to try to control its people. The right to keep and bear arms was given because at the time the British government had outlawed the possession of arms by citizens so that the British military could control the citizens and the forefathers knew that to keep the government in check and prevent total control by the military the citizens must have the right to keep bear arms. Many Colorado and other U.S. citizen’s feel their constitutional right was infringed on when the State of Colorado outlawed the possession, sale or transfer of a large capacity magazine in 2013. This law was enacted specifically to individuals possessing (owners of such magazines prior to July 1, 2013 were grandfathered in and allowed to keep and possess magazines with 15+ rounds), selling or transferring any magazine that could hold over 15 rounds of ammunition

Read More
685 Words | 3 Pages

He and Clark M. Neily, gathered six people to be the plaintiffs. Dick Heller a police officer that carried a hand gun all day but wasn’t allowed to have one in his home. He wanted this law to be removed. The Supreme Court overruled the local law and allowed for gun ownership and adjusted the rules for guns.

Read More
1991 Words | 8 Pages

The Second Amendment says, “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.” Gun rights has become the subject of intense political, social, and cultural battles for much of the last century. The pro-gun right side has asserted that the right to arms was absolute, and that any gun control laws infringed that right (Kopel, 2013). This right has been supported by the Supreme Court who has reinforced what has become the American consensus that the Second Amendment allows the right to keep and bear arms, especially for self-defense, and that it is a fundamental individual

Read More
707 Words | 3 Pages

Since the begining of America, the Founding Fathers wrote the strong-standing Bill of Rights with amendments to protect the country that had just recently won their freedom, but one amendment has been the top theme of controversies for centuries. Gun laws offend the Bill of Rights in so many ways and they prove ineffective. Gun Laws are relevant due to thousands of deaths and self-protection. The argument goes on but without guns there is militia, one of the main intents of the Second Amendment. These simple rules can reduce deaths, proven by millions of influential people.

Read More
1457 Words | 6 Pages

It is true that second amendment endowed the right of the citizen to bear arms, “However, considerable confusion still exists about this right because literally, the guarantee applied only to state militias instead of civilian” (Cengage). Moreover, the right was given under the certain historical context of eighteenth century, aimed at protecting our new founding nation from invasion of foreign enemies. However, far away from national defense or self-protection purpose, people today can get access to all kind of firearm easily, and the ways we possess it now becomes too overwhelming and aggressive. “People today carry guns on college campuses, in bars, taverns and churches, in parks and in the workplace, in cars and in the home. Ammunition everywhere — the deadlier, the better” (Herbert).

Read More
1386 Words | 6 Pages

According to the Second Amendment, “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.” The Second Amendment specifically states that “the right of the people to keep

Read More
716 Words | 3 Pages

The Amendment does not ensure everybody the privilege to carry weapons. The decision of Supreme Court is that Amendment ensures that states have the privilege to arrange local armies. “There are a number of possible effects which gun availability could have on violence rates. If a gun is available, it could encourage attacks, especially by weaker attackers on stronger victims, and could facilitate attacks from a distance or attacks by persons too squeamish to attack with messier weapons such as knives or too timid to attack at close quarters. Similarly, guns may enable some people to attempt robberies they could not complete unarmed” (Keleck).

Read More

More about Dick Heller's Violation Of The Second Amendment

Related Topics

Open Document