Right to Bare Arms

| An Argumentative paper submitted to Professor M. Cotton | The interpretation of the Second Amendment The Right to bear arms | | By Dozetta M. Lewis | This | This paper is to give insight on the various Supreme Court case on the interpretation of the Second Amendment the right to Bear Arms and how it was interpreted to be fair and unfair. |

The right to bear arms has always been a constitutional right Since 1791 . The Second Amendment of the Consttution of the United States of American readers . A well regulated militia , beign necessary to the Security of the free state . the Secon Amendment to the Constitution of the United states was created to protect the citizenry from its own government. There are Laws that Forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . such make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants rather to encourage than to prevent homicides,for an unmarmed man many be attacked with greater confidence than armed man.the right to bear Arms is a constitutional right , necessary to maintain a free country , and allows the common citizen to defined himself : therefore , people must contact their legislattors and urge then protect the Second Amendment. In the supreme court case United States v. Miller ET AL. 307 U.S.174 Miller was subject to two possible interpretations. One that the Second Amendment was an individual right, and that the right is only extends to weapons commonly used in militias. The Second view of miller is that the Amendment guarantees no rights to individuals at all, and the defendants lost the case as soon as it was obvious that they were not a member of the militia. The second concern about the Second Amendment was does the right of the individual to own a firearm, is against state regulations as well as federal regulation? During 1876 the Supreme court said the right if it existed was enforce able only against the federal government , but it’s not clear that the court would come to the same conclusion. Mr. justice McReynolds stated that “It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a firearm except in pursuance to transfer of a written order form the person seeking to obtain in such article , on an application from issued in blank in duplicate d for that purpose by the commissioner . such order shall identify the application by such means of identification as may be prescribe by regulations under this Act: provided, that the applicant is an individual such identification shall include fingerprints and photographed thereof It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a firearm except in pursuance of a written order from the person seeking to obtain such article, on an application form issued in blank in duplicate for that purpose by the Commissioner. Such order shall identify the applicant by such means of identification as may be prescribed by regulations under this Act: Provided that, if the applicant is an individual, such identification shall include fingerprints and a photograph thereof. In the case Victor D. Quilic vs. village of Morton Grove this was case were an appeal was challenge based on the village of Morton Groves ordinance No. 81-11, n1 which prohibits the possession of handgun s within the village’s borders. The appellant sought to say that it was invalid under the Second amendment , and the argument was that the second Amendment applies to states and local governments which guarantee the right to keep and bear arms exists , not only to assist in the common defense , but also to protect the individual .In this Case the Second Amendment was agreed that it don apply to the Morton Grove because possession of handguns by an individual was not a part of the right to keep and bear arms , ordinance No. 81-11 and the fact that it does not Violate the Second Amendment . However if the ordenece had implemented the phase the right to bear arms then the Odense No. 81-11 would have been protected under the Second Amendment. The fact remains that the Supreme Court never embraced this theory. The most recent Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment tends to lean in two different ways. The first is what is meant to ensure the individual that they have a right to own a firearm: the n the second is to ensure the State could form, arm and maintain their militias. However both ways are consider being federal action only, because the 2nd amendment does not incorporate the Supreme Court to apply to the states. What this is saying that within its own constitution, a state may have some restrictions or unrestrictive wishes to be regulating firearms, however private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. Such as the Case with Village of Morton Grove they can ban firearms from being housed in there borders. As illustrated in this first Section the Miller case proves that the second amendment does appear to have been designed to protect the militias and it design to protect a individual‘s right to own and bear firearms. Today in society we have adhere to the fact that the Amendment, reinterpreting the amendment to allow restricted gun ownership, we have to open the door for reinterpretation of others, to the more basic part of the constitution. We must decide to nothing, and allow unrestricted gun ownership; we will open door for society to be controlled by guns, and a risk that will be too dangerous to take. So we must ask some see the realistic see to ourselves that we cannot incite violence without consequences. We must find a balance between the reasonable regulations for gun ownership, the right to bear firearms and be in coherent with the Second Amendment, and at the same time not to violate ones constitutional right. This all come with Gun ownership in a responsible way with the right of concepts having or bear firearms with intent of protection for individual.
In conclusion ,We the people of the United States are aware of the problems that we face today concerning the Second Amendment The right to Bear Arms in our homes, our body and more. We take it very serious because many believe the handgun ownership is a solution. the constitution leaves us with a variety of tools for creating problems , including some regulating handguns , but the constitutional rights takes certain policy choices off the table .that includes handgun used in self defense in the home , or even when in public and being robbed by someone. It definitely makes one think that the Second amendment has out mode in society, but where our standing army is the pride of our nation. That can be debate bale but what cannot be debatable is that is the role of the court to announce the Second amendment extinct.

Word Cited
Victor D. Quilic vs. Village of Morton Grove United states court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit December 6, 1982 decided United States v. Miller ET AL. 307 U.S.174 1999. Our 2nd amendment: the original perspective .national rifle Association Institute for legislature Action. Internet: http://.nraila.org/reesearch/19991004- BillofrightsCivilRights -001.shtml 1999c. Federal court cases regarding the Second Amendment National rifle Association Institute for legislative Action Interne: http://.nraila.org/research/1990729- Bilofrightscivilrights-004.html

Cited: Victor D. Quilic vs. Village of Morton Grove United states court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit December 6, 1982 decided United States v. Miller ET AL. 307 U.S.174 1999. Our 2nd amendment: the original perspective .national rifle Association Institute for legislature Action. Internet: http://.nraila.org/reesearch/19991004- BillofrightsCivilRights -001.shtml 1999c. Federal court cases regarding the Second Amendment National rifle Association Institute for legislative Action Interne: http://.nraila.org/research/1990729- Bilofrightscivilrights-004.html