The Right to Bear Arms is a Human Right | Human Events

 

right to bear arms article

Sep 04,  · The Second Amendment to the Constitution, which concerns the right to bear arms, is always a hot-button issue, especially during election season. . Like Mexico, Guatemala permits gun ownership, but with severe restrictions. The right to bear arms is recognized and regulated by article 38 of the current constitution, which was established in Author: Brennan Weiss, James Pasley. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not the product of the latest research fads or exquisitely tortured “data journalism,” but a natural extension of the Lockean principles on Author: Charles C.W. Cooke.


Gun Control: The Right To Bear Arms | History Today


The Second Amendment provides U. Ratified in Decemberthe amendment says:. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a right to bear arms article State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard.

It was deemed a compromise between Federalists — those who supported the Constitution as it was ratified — and the anti-Federalists — those who supported states having more power. Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government. Since its ratification, Americans have been arguing over the amendment's meaning and interpretation.

One side interprets the amendment to mean it provides for collective rights, while the opposing view is that it provides individual rights, right to bear arms article. Those who take the collective side think the amendment gives each state the right to maintain and train formal militia units that can provide protection against an oppressive federal government. They argue the "well regulated militia" clause clearly means the right to bear arms should only be given to these organized groups.

They believe this allows for only those in the official militia to carry guns legally, and say the federal government cannot abolish state militias. Those with the opposite viewpoint believe the amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns, free of federal regulations, to protect themselves in the face of danger. The individualists believe the amendment's militia clause was never meant to restrict each citizen's rights to bear arms.

Both interpretations have helped shape the country's ongoing gun control debate. Those supporting an individual's right to own a gun, such as the National Rifle Association, argue that the Second Amendment should give all citizens, not just members of a militia, the right to own a gun. Those supporting stricter gun control, like the Brady Campaign, believe the Second Amendment isn't a blank check for anyone to own a gun.

They feel that restrictions on firearms, such as who can have them, under what conditions, where they can be taken, right to bear arms article, and what types of firearms are available, are necessary. While the right to bear arms is regularly debated in the court of public opinion, it is the Supreme Court whose opinion matters most. Yet despite an ongoing public battle over gun ownership rights, until recent years the Supreme Court had said very little on the issue. One of the first rulings came in in U.

The case involved members of the Ku Klux Klan not allowing black citizens the right to standard freedoms, such as the right to assembly and the right to bear arms. As part of the ruling, the court said the right of each individual to bear arms was not granted under the Constitution. Ten years later, the court affirmed the ruling in Presser v. Illinois when it said that the Second Amendment only limited the federal government from prohibiting gun ownership, right to bear arms article the states.

The Supreme Court took up the issue again in in Miller v. In this case, Dallas' Franklin Miller sued the state of Texas, arguing that despite state laws saying otherwise, he should have been able to carry a concealed weapon under Second Amendment protection. The court right to bear arms article, saying the Second Amendment does not apply to state laws, like Texas' restrictions on carrying dangerous weapons.

All three of the cases heard before cemented the court's opinion that the Bill of Rights, and right to bear arms article the Second Amendment, does not prohibit states from setting their own rules on gun ownership. Miller in In that case, Jack Miller and Frank Layton were arrested for carrying an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines, which had been prohibited since the National Firearms Act was enacted five years earlier, right to bear arms article.

The Supreme Court disagreed, however, saying "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency right to bear arms article a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

It would be nearly 70 years before the court took up the issue again, this time in the District of Columbia v. Heller in The case centered on Dick Heller, a licensed special police office in Washington, D. For the first time, the Supreme Court ruled right to bear arms article despite state laws, individuals who were not part of a state militia did have the right to bear arms.

As part of its ruling, the court wrote, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The court would rule on the issue again two years later as part of McDonald v. City of Chicagowhich challenged the city's ban on private handgun ownership. In a similar 5-to-4 ruling, the court affirmed its decision in the Heller case, saying the Second Amendment "applies equally to the federal government and the states.

Inthe Supreme Court again ruled on a right-to-bear-arms case, Caetano v. The case involved a woman who was in possession of a stun gun for self-defense against an abusive ex-boyfriend. Because stun guns were illegal under Massachusetts law, the woman was arrested and convicted for possessing the weapon. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, right to bear arms article, which ruled that stun guns and, indeed "all instruments that constitute bearable arms," are protected under the Second Amendment.

Inthe Supreme Court declined to hear Peruta v. Californiaa gun-rights case centering around concealed carry, or the right to carry a concealed handgun in public.

California requires that applicants for a concealed carry license show right to bear arms article cause," such as a specific threat to a person's safety.

A Vietnam veteran named Edward Peruta challenged this requirement as a curtailment of his Second Amendment rights. While Heller was a case about keeping firearms in the home for self-protection, Peruta v.

California was about whether that right extends to the public sphere. Justice Clarence Thomas and new justice Neil Gorsuch dissented from the refusal to review the case, indicating that the Supreme Court's newest justice may be particularly conservative on gun rights.

Meanwhile, the battle over gun rights continues at the state level. A working paper from Harvard Business School researchers found that a mass shooting leads to a 15 percent increase in the number of firearm-related bills introduced into the state legislature that year. The more fatalities, right to bear arms article, the larger the increase in firearm bills.

But the bills aren't always what you might expect: When Republicans hold power in the state legislature after a mass shooting, the number of laws enacted to loosen gun restrictions goes up 75 percent.

Democrat-controlled legislatures, on the other hand, did not enact a higher rate of regulation-tightening laws immediately after mass shootings than before. Despite the recent rulings, the debate on gun control continues.

Editor's Note: This reference article was first published on Jan. Right to bear arms article was updated with new cases and information on June 26, Live Science. Image credit: Onur Ersin Shutterstock.

 

The right to bear arms: what does the second amendment really mean? | US news | The Guardian

 

right to bear arms article

 

Feb 08,  · When the right to bear arms collides with the right not to be killed, why do the guns always win? When rights collide, we usually compromise. After the terrorist attacks of , the right . The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not the product of the latest research fads or exquisitely tortured “data journalism,” but a natural extension of the Lockean principles on Author: Charles C.W. Cooke. All the Supreme Court can do is to interpret the right, so as to say whether various attempts to limit or control it, at state or federal level are lawful. In the UK, the position is quite different. As Blackstone made clear, the origin of the right to bear arms was in a statute.