Cons Of The Second Amendment

The United States of America is known for its freedom. The Bill of Rights had many listings of freedoms that were protected one of these was the second amendment which basically states an individual has the right to bear arms to protect themselves. When this right is taken away. The second amendment is like any other controversial topic becoming the talk of the town and no matter how you interpret it it will hurt someone’s beliefs and opinions. People believe the second amendment gives the right for anyone to bear arms no matter what the situation while others find that there are restrictions to the statement.
The 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.” This single statement has sparked many debates and lawsuits as it is very vague in its meaning. This amendment along with the rest of the Bill of Rights was written and proposed by James Madison and put into effect
December of 1791. There are people that think this second amendment does not protect the right to bear arms while others believe it does. One of the people that are for the second amendment is our current vice president Mike Pence. Mike Pence has voted on many laws that protect the right to use, carry, and conceal their firearms for the use of protection. In a speech given at the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum, Mike Pence talks about may things that perpetuate his belief in the second amendment and his freedom one of which can be seen from the quote “firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens make us more safe not less safe.” The interpretation of this amendment continues to be discussed today.
One such debate in the form of a lawsuit was the case of District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. Dick Heller was a man that was denied his right to acquire a weapons license to purchase a handgun due to the “Firearms Control Regulation Act” which prohibited anyone unless for the use of a police officer or a security guard to purchase handguns. The purpose of this court was to determine whether this act was constitutional or not. Washington’s take on the issue was that since the amendment states that “A well regulated militia” meant that only people that were a part of a militia were allowed the right to freely bear arms. Heller’s case claimed that the government did not have the right to ban handguns entirely and that it did not matter whether an individual was a part of a militia or not as it would be used for protection. With much deliberation the court favored Heller’s case in a ruling 5-4 stating that the Firearms Control Regulation Act was indeed unconstitutional and infringed upon the people’s right to bear arms. This landmark case has been the bases for many other cases similar to it.
Similar cases have popped up all over of America two being the cases of the NRA v.
BATFE and Drake v. Filko. These cases delve into two different situations but both relate the second amendment and the rights it gives to the people. In the case of the NRA v BATFE it dealt with whether individuals between the ages of 18-20 were allowed to buy handguns. The National Rifle Association fought in favor of allowing them to while the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives voted in favor of not allowing. Things did not turn out well for the NRA as the court ruled against both of their arguments and determined that not allowing 18-20 year old handguns did not violate the second amendment. The other case, Drake v. Filko was to determine whether the second amendment allowed for the open carry of handguns. The court ruled that the Handgun Permit Law was indeed constitutional. Both of these cases used the case of Dick Heller to help determine their views on the
subject.
Lastly, it has been determined by the supreme court that second amendment protects your right to bear arms whether the person is in a militia of not. While this is the case there are still many restrictions on this. Even now there is still debate over whether that is true and will continue to influence many other discussions. There will never be a clear understanding of what the second amendment was trying to portray but for now there is a consensus in the eyes of the law.