Background:
After the District of Columbia enacted a gun control law banning all handguns and all other guns at home must be unloaded and disassembled. Dick Heller along with five other D.C. residents claimed that they needed these handguns to protect their homes from danger. They did not oppose gun registrations or want to take them out of their house, they solely wanted to keep them in their house for protection.
Issue:
Does the D.C. gun control law violate the Second Amendment rights of people who are not in any state-regulated militia, yet want to have handguns at home?
Decision:
District of Columbia's ban on handguns was taken down in a 5v4 decision.
Majority: Scalia
Dissent: Stevens
Opinion:
I agree with this decision because according to U.S. V. Miller an act limiting guns that do not posses any real defense value was outlawed. Because of the fact that a handgun's primary purpose is to defend the wielder rather than attack multiple people, the Supreme Court ruled that an act restricting handguns was unconstitutional. Also because Heller only wanted to use the gun for defense was also another factor because he was not looking to take the gun out of his home. Additionally another reason I support this decision because I believe that the Second Amendment was written to ensure that all people will have self-protection if wanted.
I agree with your opinion because of what you said about how handguns being restricted would be unconstitutional. I also agree with what you said about the second. Amendment being written to ensure that all people should be allowed to be self-protected if wanted.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinion because I believe that the 2nd Amendment does apply to individuals and not just the militia. The District of Columbia basically told the citizens there that they were able to have guns as long as they had a license and they kept the gun unloaded and disassembled (useless). The 2nd Amendment includes in it "the people" showing that this Amendment is meant for everyone and not just the militia.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your opinion because when the second amendment was added to the constitution, the purpose of it was to arm the state-regulated militias in case the federal government tried to use the army against the states. Allowing citizens to own guns does not protect individual's safety.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the decision as well, but also on the basis that any citizen should have this right to bear arms unconnected with involvement in militia as long as they are not using them for unlawful purposes. As Danny said they were using them solely for protection which is completely legal and therefore this law regulating the handguns In DC infringed on the right coming from the Second Amendment.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinion as well as the majority opinion. I do believe that people have the right to own a gun, especially in their own home. However, I do not think that a major argument for this case is that of protection because the men is this case stated that they are only going to have their guns in their home. While one could argue that protection is necessary in the home, these men would not be using guns in public for protection anyway.
ReplyDelete