Essay On The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

The clause “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State (Constitutional Convention, amendment II)” barley announces a purpose. It doesn’t limit or expand the outlook of the clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (Constitutional Convention, amendment II)” The clause’s text and history merely states that it connotes a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. The military consisted of all males that was capable of acting together to form a common defense. The Antifederalists was in fear that our federal government would take away the firearms of the people in order to stop citizen militias, therefore allowing a political standing army or to select a certain militia to rule.
The drawing of history three proposals that refereed to a person’s right to keep and bear arms. This interpretation of the Second Amendment by courts, scholars, and legislators from the ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Courts theory. There was no excluding in this understanding. The United States v. Miller case limited the type of weapons which the right actually relates to those in the common use for lawfully purposes, but does not limit the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms because of militia purposes. The Second Amendment right is not the right to own any weapon of our choice and carry in any way for any specific purpose we may choose. The court has an upheld controlled legislation which includes the outlaw on concealed weapons and the ownership of a firearm to a person that has a mental illness or that happens to be a felon, laws ruling out the carry of a firearm in a place such as in a government building or a school. Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on commercially sold firearms. The tradition of forbidding the carrying of unusual and unsafe weapons supports the holding in the United States v. Miller case that the different kinds of weapons protected are those in the common