It contends that Congress passed the Second Amendment to protect the states from federal actions to disarm their militias. Thus, even if the Court finds that there is an individual right to firearms, that right is only protected to the extent federal legislation interferes with the effectiveness of state militias. Further, the District argues that the Second Amendment does not constrain the ability of the states to regulate firearms.
The District concludes that the Second Amendment should not operate to constrain the its power to regulate firearms because first, legislation limited to the District does not implicate the federalism concerns that motivated the passage of the Second Amendment, and second, because it is unreasonable to think the Framers "intended Congress to be more constrained in the seat of federal power than a state would be in it's own territory.
Heller argues that the government of the nation's capitol must obey the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because these texts are the supreme law of the land. He argues that "Congress can exercise general police powers within the District, 'so long as it does not contravene any provisions of the Constitution of the United States.
Here, Heller believes the three D. The D. United States , determining that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are fully in effect in the District. The appellate court further held that the District could formulate reasonable gun restrictions since the District is subject to the provisions within the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but that the restrictions in this case were unreasonable because they banned the use of handguns, arms protected by the Second Amendment.
The interpretation of the Second Amendment has been debated for years. On one side are gun rights advocates who argue that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to "keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court's decision in this case will provide the first interpretation of the Second Amendment in 69 years and may have a significant impact on the United States ' gun control laws.
The American Bar Association " ABA " argues that finding an individual right to keep and bear arms would destabilize the existing gun control laws and regulations passed by the federal government and state governments. The ABA contends that "separating the right to bear arms from the maintenance of a well-regulated militia would cast doubt on the authority of state and local governments to regulate firearms" and undermine the social policy and law enforcement decisions that are grounded in these laws.
A brief filed by district attorneys in support of D. They argue that fear a statute is "susceptible to attack" on Second Amendment grounds could "impair a prosecutor's ability to protect public safety. They argue that if the Supreme Court finds there is a broad individual right to keep and bear firearms, it will create confusion over the enforcement of existing firearms laws and cause an "inevitable flood of constitutional challenges.
The National Rifle Association "NRA" argues that the District's interpretation of the Second Amendment gives the federal government the power to completely disarm the people and make the Second Amendment meaningless. It claims that under this interpretation, only members of a militia organized by the federal government would have the right to keep and bear arms.
Thus, Congress could eliminate all citizens' Second Amendment rights simply by not organizing a militia. The NRA notes that this would allow the government to wholly control who has the right to keep and bear arms, and could empower oppressive regimes that could then legally only arm their supporters. The NRA asserts that this result is counter to the rationale behind that Second Amendment: that the people would be armed and thus "remain a bulwark for the 'security of a free state.
Amici supporting the District of Columbia argue that gun control laws have important and significant public health and safety benefits. For example, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence "Brady Center" argues that there has traditionally been broad legislative authority to regulate guns, and that the resulting gun laws have contributed to public safety by keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people.
It notes that gun laws are at the core of the states' police powers, and involve important questions of public policy that are best and most appropriately addressed through legislation. Similarly, a brief filed by several major American cities notes that depriving cities of flexibility in crafting "locally tailored solutions to the particular threats and costs of gun violence" will damage their ability to protect their residents and promote public well-being.
Public health advocates contend that the presence of a gun in a home increases the risk of suicide, homicide, and accidental gun death. In contrast, the NRA contends that the Gun Ban has not improved public safety by reducing the rate of murder and violent crime in D.
Expanding on this argument, law enforcement groups claim that the knowledge a home might contain firearms protects lives because it discourages many criminals from entering homes when the owners are present. Similarly, GeorgiaCarry. Org and the Congress of Racial Equality argue that many laws restricting firearms such as handguns have a disparate impact on poor and minority communities. Both groups argue that the ability to defend oneself, family, and property, "is much more critical in the poor and minority neighborhoods ravaged by crime and without adequate police protection.
In particular, it claims that the primary methods of enforcing gun control laws are illegal searches by the police which violate the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. It notes that African Americans suffer disproportionately from handgun deaths and violence, nationally and in D. The NAACP argues that the Gun Ban is an important step towards addressing the gun problem and saving lives, even if it does not completely solve the gun problem due to the easy availability of guns in neighboring jurisdictions.
This is the first Second Amendment case on the Supreme Court's docket in almost seventy years, leaving gun advocates and opponents waiting in anticipation for the Court's findings, which may provide answers to many long-lasting questions regarding the scope of the Amendment. Gun advocates interpret the Second Amendment to provide an individual right to possess guns for personal use.
Gun opponents believe the Second Amendment provides a collective right to bear arms for individuals associated with an organized military force like the National Guard. If the Court determines the Second Amendment provides an individual right to bear arms for personal use, several subsequent questions arise from this landmark proposition, such as the legality of gun prohibitions and restrictions, what level of scrutiny applies to restrictions and regulations, and whether the right is fundamental.
However, if the Court determines the Amendment does not guarantee an individual right, states will have little stopping them from passing laws restricting gun ownership. Rakove, Saul Cornell, David T.
Konig, William J. Novak, Lois G. Schwoerer et al. Chamber of Commerce, D. Baron, Ph. Use precise geolocation data. Select personalised content. Create a personalised content profile. Measure ad performance. Select basic ads. Create a personalised ads profile. Select personalised ads. Apply market research to generate audience insights. Measure content performance. Develop and improve products. List of Partners vendors. Share Flipboard Email.
Government U. Foreign Policy U. Liberal Politics U. Ben Garrett. Fast Facts: D. Respondent: Dick Anthony Heller Key Questions: Did the provisions of the District of Columbia Code that restrict the licensing of handguns and require licensed firearms kept in the home to be kept nonfunctional violate the Second Amendment?
Cite this Article Format. Garrett, Ben. A Breakdown of D. Timeline of Gun Control in the United States. United States v. Lopez: The Case and Its Impact. 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.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank , 92 U. Illinois , U. United States v. Miller , U. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
0コメント