This source talks about the beginning and evolution of the second amendment. It talks about its original intentions, then goes on to explain how it is being interpreted today. The biggest debate is whether the amendment is the private right of citizens to bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations. The purpose of this amendment was so that there would not have to be a need of a large military since it was believed that this would suppress the people. If there was a small invasion then the militia could handle it. With the revolutionary war, however, this was shown to be ineffective. Congress then decided that the Federal government should have the power to be able to establish armies, and control the militia. This brought up a lot of argument from the Federalists, and the anti-Federalists. The anti-Federalists thought badly of this decision because it would take …show more content…
It was envisioned by the founding fathers as the “true palladium of liberty.” It provides the states the last “coup de grace” that would help states oppose the government. The origins of this amendment can be traced back to ancient Roman times, but the English origins came from Queen Elizabeth I. The first hearing for the amendment was Presser v. Illinois (1886). The Supreme Court concluded that the amendment prevented states from prohibiting people from bearing arms. In United States v. Schwimmer (1929) The Supreme Court concluded that the amendment was putting forth the duty of defending the country of all enemies. In United States v. Miller with the National Firearms Act of 1934, that having a shotgun with a barrel under 18 inches (sawed off shotgun) was not included in military equipment. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Supreme Court concluded that self defense was the primary reason of the amendment. This meant that the District of Columbia’s ban on rifles and shotguns was