The second amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms. It was ratified on December 17, 1791. According to laws.com, “As passed by the Congress: 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. As ratified by the 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 second amendment, like all the other first ten amendments, is a part of the Bill of Rights, which was meant to keep the people as free as possible. This amendment was for the citizens to defend themselves in case of emergencies, back when the amendment was created, for defending themselves against British being one example. The people could not defend themselves when the British housed themselves inside the American homes. The framers’ intent was for the militia to be well regulated, just not as we would think nowadays, being …show more content…
Chicago 2010, the second amendment over rules Chicago’s handgun ban. The people of the city said they felt vulnerable and brought this ban to attention. Rejecting the petitioners would have been unconstitutional, so they brought it to the Supreme Court. The judgement was reversed, and the case remanded. According to guncite.com, the petitioners had based their case on two things-“Primarily, they argue that the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the Slaughter-House Cases’ narrow interpretation of the Clause should now be rejected. As a secondary argument, they contended that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates the Second Amendment right. Chicago and Oak Park (municipal respondents) maintain that a right set out in the Bill of Rights applies to the States only when it is an indispensable attribute of any “‘civilized’ ” legal