What Is Heller's Second Amendment

The second amendment was one of the original rights added to the constitution in the United States Constitution Bill of Rights. It was accepted into law in December 1791. The law 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 means that the people have the right to carry weapons and join in militias. The amendment was added as a compromise between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The law was added mainly for two reasons. For one, the American people had just gained independence from Britain using weapons (Brooks). It was also passed as it was seen as a way that would enable the people to take power again if the government
The case began when Dick Heller, a special police officer, was not permitted to register to use a handgun i his home on the basis of the District of Columbia’s Firearms Regulation Act of 1975 (NOLO). Heller then claimed this violated his Second Amendment Rights, and the case reached the Supreme Court (NOLO). Heller effectively won the case, and the right to carry a handgun. Now, we will examine why Heller won the case. For one, the law would not allow anyone to register handguns without permission from the police chief. This was seen as unconstitutional, as it was seen that his person could take away the rights of others to freely exercise the Second Amendment (NOLO). This was seen as unconstitutional, as the chief could effectively withhold the rights that the Second Amendment grants. Another reason this was seen as unconstitutional, was that some guns could not be used. The law stated that, “Any legally-owned gun in the home had to be either disassembled, or bound by a trigger-lock or similar device,” (NOLO). This effectively made it impossible to use any sort of weapon. This was struck down as unconstitutional, because it again did not allow the use of the Second Amendment’s Rights. Another reason that it was decided that the FRA was unconstitutional also because it did not allow new handguns to be registered. The law claimed, no handgun registered after the passing of the FRA would be considered legal (NOLO). This was also deemed unconstitutional, as it stopped new people from practicing their Second Amendment Rights. In the end, the case was a massive victory for anti-gun control advocates, granting the rights to use weapons in your own home. There were problems with this case though. The problem with this case is that it was tried against Washington D.C., not a state, it was unknown if states would have to follow these rules. The next case I will examine addresses this