How should the second amendment be interpreted Research Paper

How should the second amendment be interpreted - Research study ExampleFor example, recent calls to control and even ban gun use as a retort to increasing violence and murder in schools that involve guns such as the the recent shooting in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown inadvertently run counter to the basic blame of Right of the Second Amendment. This is not the first however that this Amendment had been challenged and in fact, there were several court decisions do in the past that undermined this provision due to its unclear coverage and extent. For example, we can cite the U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876) case whereby it was a great deal cited out of context with the claim otherwise that Second Amendment is is not a right granted by the Constitution (Guncite.com, 2010). This out of context interpretation also resulted in other flawed state edict such as a provision in the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 law in the dominion of Columbia that requires all firearms in cluding rifles and shotguns to be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a creation go. The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 also contained a provision that prohibits the residents of the District of Columbia from owning shooting irons except those that were registered former to 1975. As expected, the law was challenged and was elevated in the Supreme Court. Until finally on June 26, 2008 the Supreme Court make a decision to affirm the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia. The Court of Appeals had initially made a decision to remove two provide in the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional. The provisions that were removed as unconstitutional were the provision that prohibits the residence of District of Columbia from the ownership of handguns except prior 1975 and the provision that requires all firearms to be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times. The decision elaborated that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms merely stating its decision was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter universe understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government activity (Library of Congress). Further, this right help preserve a citizen militia the activities the Amendment protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individuals usance of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia. (Guncite.com). With regard to handgun ownership, the Supreme Court thus decided that the District of Columbia cannot prohibit its citizen from owning such as guaranteed by the right enunciated in the Second Amendment albeit subjected to restrictions. The specific provision of Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 that specified that all firearms including rifles and shotguns be unloaded and disassembled or bo und by a trigger lock was also struck gloomy as unconstitutional. Although the District asserted that there are exceptions to this provision, it still meant to a total prohibition on functional firearms that would be used for self defense. The court further exegete Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional. Further, in the original U.S. v. Cruikshank in 1876 case which is often misinterpreted