American Law and Society: 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms Essay

This essay critically evaluates the Second Amendment's right to bear arms within American law and society. It examines the historical context, legal interpretations, and societal implications of gun ownership and gun control. The essay analyzes key articles, including perspectives on the evolving interpretation of the Second Amendment and the debates surrounding gun control. It also examines the excerpts from District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) to provide a comprehensive understanding of the legal and political dimensions of the right to bear arms. The study explores the influence of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the impact of court decisions on the interpretation of the Second Amendment, offering insights into the ongoing debates and challenges surrounding firearms regulation in the United States.

American law and society
second amendment right to
carry and bear arms

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................10
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................12

INTRODUCTION
The 2nd amendment comply on guaranteeing right to the individuals associated
with the bear arms. The competent to carry firearmss within the US is referred to as one of the
key fundamental right which in turn has been specifically secured by the 2nd amendment s
within the fundamental law of U.S. (Ruben and Blocher, 2017). The American law is based on
the common law which helps in resolving various issues in a significant manner. This study will
critically evaluate on the American Law and Society 2nd amendment competent to carry
firearmss. This study will evaluate various set of articles which mainly helps in critically
examining the key viewpoints associated with the Politics Changed the Reading of the 2nd
amendment and the Court Failed on Gun Control. Moreover, this study also mainly examines the
key excerpts from the District of Columbia v. Heller 2008 to attain wider set of knowledge and
understanding.
MAIN BODY
The competent to carry firearms is considered to be as tradition which tends to have key
significant root within the society. As per the Thomas Jefferson, no free man must be barroom
from the usage of the arms. In order to prevent the citizens or individuals of the US who peace
from guardianship their set of arms. The competent to carry firearms is significantly protected by
the 2nd amendment within the US constitution (O'Scannlain, 2019). However, the 2nd
amendment is useful in assurance the right of the individual people in order to keep and bear the
arms. The key significant purpose which is useful in stating the claims which has been claimed
by the 2nd amendment with the key significant purpose in order to preserve the state militia. The
2nd amendment focuses on guaranteeing the right of the individuals associated with the bear
arms. Moreover, the competent to carry firearms tends to give right to the individuals which is
useful in possessing the arms for own set of defence. The competent to carry firearmss within the
US is referred to as one of the key fundamental right which in turn has been specifically secured
by the 2nd amendment s within the constitution of US.
Background of the 2nd amendment
The American law within the US mainly comprise of many levels associated with the
uncodified and codified forms within the law. The constitution of the America mainly focuses on
effectively setting the boundaries linked with the federal law. The competent to carry firearms

has been effectively passed by the Congress on 25th September, 1789. The 2nd amendment has
been ratified on the 15th December, 1791. A well eshtablished within the Militia, being
considered compulsory for security within the free states (Põiklik, 2016). The regulation tends to
effectively state that, the right of person must not be edge. The 2nd amendment mainly focuses
on significantly protecting the private right of the individual which is useful to keep and fire
arms. The 2nd amendment is significant because it provides well eshtablished Militia, which has
been considered necessary within the safety of the free state. The 2nd amendment mainly
focuses on providing the citizens of the US with the right to bear arms. The 2nd amendment
which has been proposed by the James Madison after the constitution has been ratified officially
in order to provide the wide set of powers to the state militia. However, the state militia are
considered to be as a National guard. It is classified between the Federalists and the non-
federalists (Cornell, and Cornell, 2018). However, the federalist are considered to be as those
who tends to significantly support the constitution. On the contrary, anti- federalists are those
who supports the states who tends to have more power. The key amendments has been made to
give the citizens of the US key opportunity to significantly fight back within the tyrannical
federal government. After the ratification of the amendment II, the Americans have been arguing
over the interpretation and meaning attached with the 2nd amendment . The Amendment II gives
right to the state in maintaining and training the formal militia units. This is highly significant in
providing the protection against the oppressive federal government. A well eshtablished militia
helps in bearing the arms in order to effectively carry gun in legal and reliable manner. The
federal government does not have the right to abolish state militias. Those who tends to have a
contradictory viewpoints stated that, the citizen must have the key relevant right to effectively
own a gun. As per the National rifle association, the amendment II must give all the citizens of
the USA and not just key members of the militia in order to give significant right to effectively
own a gun. The competent to carry firearms has been debated regularly within the court of public
opinion. The opinion of the Supreme court tends to matter (Halbrook, 2020). The Amendment II
is highly based on the right to keep and also bear the arms within the English common law. The
2nd amendment has been influenced by the English bill of right in 1689. Moreover, Sir William
Blackstone focuses on describing the right as the auxiliary right which mainly focuses on
supporting the natural rights associated with the self-defence and also key resistance to the

oppression (Pollard, 2019). This amendment states that, it is the civic duty of the individual
person to significantly act within the concert in defence.
The court failed on Gun Control.
The case of John Paul Stevens on the “the court failed on Gun Control” stated about the
decision of Supreme court that the individual has the right to possess and carry firearms under
the constitution and this is not the incorrect decision. This is majorly because of the reason that
all the individual has right to protect themselves and for this the most essential thing is to carry
the arms and other related things with the person. This was undoubtedly the wrong decision
because of the reason that the this can even result in many dangerous things like the people can
use the weapons for their personal problems also and this might hamper the working of their life.
As per the 2nd amendment it is stated that a well eshtablished military is necessary for
the safety and security of the people and because of this reason there is no need of providing the
right to carry the arms and other weapons with them. This was due to the fact that if there was
any situation where the arms were required then in that case the police or the militants were
available. Thus, it was not required by the common people or the civilians to carry the arms and
other weapons with them. The background of the 2nd amendment it was seen that this was a
better amendment to not allow the civilians to carry the arms with them as it can be dangerous.
When the Justice John Paul Stevens joined the supreme court then at that time both state and
federal judges accepted the decision under the case of US v. Miller to establish the 2nd
amendment wherein protection of the right to bear the arms by only the militia and the weapons
which were used by the military only.
There was a controversy relating to the 2nd amendment where Heller raised objection to
the use of the firearm regulations by the civil people. This was basically because of the reason
that first two federal laws directly restricted the civilians to use the arms and other related
products of safety. After all the discussion and the debates and argument over this decision of
firearm it was unanimously concluded that the 2nd amendment does not apply to possess the
arm with them (The supreme court’s worst decision of my tenure, 2019). Thus, the 2nd
amendment ensures and guarantees that no person or the civilian is allowed or is having the
right to keep and carry and bear a firearm which do not have any relationship with the
eshtablished military or is not having any of the permission then the person is not allowed to
keep the weapons or firearms with them.

In the end it can be said that it was the right decision to not change the 2nd amendment
as if this would have changed then the civilians will be allowed to keep the arms with them and
this can be very risky and harmful for the people. This was due to the reason that this can be very
dangerous as these firearms can be used in wrong or for some other purpose as well.
As per the John Paul Stevens case, the decision of the court fails to evaluate the any new set of
evidence which supports the view of the 2nd amendment and has been limiting the power of the
congress in order to effectively regulate the civilian use of the weapon (Lerner, 2020). Within the
dissenting opinion, the John Paul Stevens has clearly stated that the judgement which has been
strained and also unpersuasive reading.
Politics has changed the reading of the 2nd amendment
The key prospect associated with the gun control legislation within the congress tends to
appear to be remote. The National rifle association (NRA) and its alliance within the lobby tends
to effectively maintain a firm grip upon the Republican party. Effective measures has been taken
in order to curb gun violence (Epstein and Konig, 2019). The key significant powers which are
associated with the National rifle association are considered to be beyond the control of the
executive and legislative branches. The 2nd amendment tends to put high degree of emphasis
and states clear set of meaning that, it is a well regulated within the Militia, being considered
necessary for the security within the free states. The regulation tends to effectively state that, the
right of the people must not be infringed. The Supreme court states the 2nd amendment do not
confer with the individual right. In the year 19th Century, the National rifle association undertook
the key extensive effort in order to change the public and key understanding related with the 2nd
amendment . Passing and embracing the gun sight legislation within the states which mainly
fosters legal culture in order to evaluate the competent to carry firearms. Moreover, the District
of the Columbia v. Heller tends to effectively develop understanding on the 2nd amendment
(Politics Changed the Reading of the 2nd amendment —and Can Change It Again, 2019). As per
the Chief Justice Warren E. Burger establish the fact that, the 2nd amendment effectively
confers with the right of the individual in order to bear arms as a fraud within the American
public. Despite mass shooting within the Dayton and the El Pas, the future of the gun control
tends to look grim. The Amendment II within the US mainly focuses on protecting the right of
the individual person in order to effectively keep and bear arms (Timpson, 2018). A well
regulated Militia is considered to be highly crucial because it is significant for the individuals of

the US to keep bear arms. The 2nd amendment is classified into two parts where a prefatory
clause states that, a well regulated militia is considered to be necessary to the security within the
free state. On the contrary, an operative clause is referred to state that, it is the right of the
individual to keep and effectively bear the arms must not be infringed. The key purpose of the
Amendment II is to effectively maintain organized and formal militia units to improve the
protection of the fire arms. The 2nd amendment has been significantly invoked by both the sides
within the contemporary debate of the gun (Zuidema, 2018). Each side of the law mainly focuses
on only one part of the amendment. Here one side is that prefatory clause and the other one is an
operative clause. The NRA and various other gun right groups mainly focuses on affirming with
the competent to carry firearms. This right in turn must not be infringed.
District of the Columbia v. Heller
As per the District of the Columbia v. Heller (2008), the supreme court in turn has
invalidated the federal law which tends to forbade all the civilians in order to possess arm guns
within the nation's capital. As per the 5-4 majority rule, the language and the key background
which has been linked with the 2nd amendment . It is highly significant in protecting the private
right of the individual in order to own weapons or arms for the defence of their own. This does
not own the right within the state in order to maintain a militia. The district of the Columbia
tends to usually prohibit the possession of the arm guns (Winkler, 2018). However, it is
considered to be as a crime in order to carry out the unregistered firearm. The registration of the
arm gun is prohibited. The individual person cannot carry an arm gun without the licence.
However, the chief of the police tends to issue licence for the period of 1 year. The district of the
Columbia law have requested residents to keep the lawfully owned and registered fire arms
which has been unloaded and are also bound to dissemble the trigger lock of the gun. Dick
Heller is a D.C. Police officer where they have been authorized to carry a arm gun at the time of
duty within the Federal judicial Center. He has a registered gun and also had a certificate for the
arm gun which the police offer wishes to keep at residential area. However, the district of the
Columbia has refused for the same. Dick Heller has filed a lawsuit within the Federal district
court. On the grounds of the 2nd amendment , the district of Columbia seeks to enjoy the city in
order to enforce the bar on the key registration associated with the arm gun (OPINION OF THE
COURTDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER554 U. S. 570 (2008), 2020). The district court
of Columbia has banned all the arm guns naturally and also states that, the other sort of fire arms

within the home must be dissembled or has been bound by a trigger lock at all the times. Arm
guns are considered to be as one of the most popular weapon which has been chosen by the
Americans for the purpose of self- defence at their home. The core law purpose of the self-
defence is that, the fire arms must be rendered inoperable. The court has also significantly stated
that, the 2nd amendment s tends to have no set of specific limitation which tends to prohibit on
the possession of the fire arm guns by the mentally ill and felons. The 2nd amendment s tend to
have no set of specific prohibition associated with the carrying of dangerous weapons on the
government buildings or school premises (Epstein and Konig, 2019). The court of Columbia has
not significantly developed or effectively established the prospective standards which is useful in
regulating the actions associated with the future guns. The district of Columbia is considered to
be as a federal enclave. The registration of the arm gun is prohibited. The 2nd amendment is
highly significant because it is useful in protecting the right of an individual person to effectively
possess a fire arm gun which has been unconnected with the service within the Militia.
The district of Columbia vs Heller U.S. 2008 is referred to as the landmark decision of
the supreme court within the US (Cornell, and Cornell, 2018). The 2nd amendment is significant
in protecting the right of an individual to keep and bear arm which are unconnected with the
service within Militia. As per the District of the Columbia the handgun ban and requirements
which are lawfully linked with the shotguns and rifles has to be kept disassembled and unloaded
by the trigger lock. The district of Columbia status associated with the federal enclave decision
has not effectively addressed the question associated with the due process clause on the 14th
amendment against the states. It is considered to be as one of the key significant and first
supreme court case which is useful in exploring the meaning within the 2nd amendment . The
district of Columbia vs Heller U.S. 2008 has been originated within the suit and file within the
U.S district court. The district's firearm control regulation act, 1975 ban the registration of the
handguns, deadly or dangerous weapon, prohibited to carry out unlicensed handgun. However,
the firearms and any another weapon in turn has been locked and also disassembled in order to
effectively prevent firing. The district court of the Columbia has given the motion to the
government in order to dismiss. In a 5- 4 ruling which has been issued on 26th June. The Supreme
court has also affirmed the appellate court's ruling (OPINION OF THE COURTDISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA V. HELLER554 U. S. 570 (2008), 2020). The amendment focuses on effectively

protecting a collective right within the states in order to maintain militia and is prominent for the
individual in competent to carry firearmss associated with the service in Militia.
The amendment associated with the prefatory clause is significant in announcing the
purpose but it does not expand or significantly limit the operative clause of the statement within
the second assessment. There are wide set of million of gun owners within the US fear because
of the peaceful ownership and is significant for the use of fire arms which in turn has to be
carried away in case the constitutional protection has been provided. Elected representatives
tends to pass high degree of stringent legislations which is useful in addressing and banning of
the gun ownership and use (Ruben and Blocher, 2017). Both the clause of the statements related
with the 2nd amendment s tends to have high degree of legitimate points. There seems to be high
degree of need to significantly make politically sustainable progress and also make wide set of
rapid changes within the US. This way it is useful in interacting with the wide set of disturbing
problems.
The right to bear arm is mainly linked with the white people within US. As per the
current Black Lives matter movement, the black man tends to carry a concealed set of weapon
illegally in order to protect themselves and is useful at the time of defence. The founding
generation within the 2nd amendment has been enacting racially discriminatory gun laws. The
American lawmakers tends to prohibit the slaves and also often free blacks in order to possess
weapons of any kind (Cornell, and Cornell, 2018). The state like Virginia allows blacks to have
guns. But, prior permission from the local officials has to be taken. The southern states within
the America has also barred the freedom in
order to significantly possess the arm guns to protect themselves. There are racists who in turn
are known as the group Ku Klux Klan to terrorize the blacks and also take away the guns.
Discrimination tends to continue even if they are highly inclined towards making the 14th
amendments. This eventually influence importance of the right to carry the arms and other
weapons. There are influx of immigrants from distinct part of the Europe are likely to be inclined
towards committing crime and also carry out hidden set of weapons. It is crucial for the cities
and states to enact the American laws in order to restrict the concealed carry. These American
laws are complying with the National rifle association. The NRA is significant in stating broad
discretion associated with the local authorities which is useful in deciding who has sufficient
level of good reason to carry gun in the public area (Winkler, 2018). Malcolm X and the Black

Panthers has took up arms and has also significantly articulated a novel view of the Amendment
II. It not only tends to give the optimum degree of right to keep the gun at home and it also
significantly helps in protecting the right on the individual to have gun in the public. Malcolm X
and the Black Panthers were considered to be as an effective measure which is useful in
effectively passing new gun regulations which has been effectively intended to disarm the black
radicals. The Heller tends to impose some set of clarity which is significant in inheriting the right
to own guns in a lawful manner. Heller has also effectively applied the standards to effectively
overturn the ban. This is useful in privately holding the handguns and has been effectively
enacted within the district of the Columbia. The congress has also tried to ban the assault type
weapon in the year 1994.
However, the 2nd amendment cannot be reformed because of wide set of political factors
which has taken place within the US. There are various set of societal and political changes
which makes it difficult for the law amender and government to make necessary changes within
the 2nd amendment . The government taking necessary measures is useful in making rapid and
also politically sustainable progress within the US to evaluate the various set of disturbing and
intractable problems. The national rifle association tends to mainly focus on effectively allying
with the various groups which helps in maintaining the gun lobby in order to effectively maintain
the firm grip. Hence, the 2nd amendment of the constitution within U.S. Is well regulated within
the militia and has been used necessarily for securing the free state. The right of the US must not
be infringed because it is significant to carry the firearms. The key historical relationship linked
with the English bill of the right and the amendment II which tends to codify the existing rights
and tends to do not create a new one which has been significantly acknowledged with the US
supreme court. The right associated with the whole people who are young and old, women or
men, boys or girls & not includes the militia in order to significantly retain & also carry the
firearms. Such rights must not be infringed and people can use it in their defence. However,
people who have a sickness or mental illness must not be given authority to use fire guns.
CONCLUSION
From the above conducted study it has been summarized that, the 2nd amendment is
useful in assuring the right of the person in order to carry the arms. The National rifle association
and various other gun right groups mainly focuses on affirming with the competent to carry
firearms. This right in turn must not be infringed. The American law within the US is mainly

based on the common law to carry out all the sets of activities. As per the John Paul Stevens
case, sentence provided by the court fails to evaluate the any new set of evidence which supports
the view of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment has two side of the law which mainly
includes clause which are prefatory and operative clause. As per the District of the Columbia v.
Heller (2008), it is considered to be as a crime in order to carry out the unregistered firearm. The
firearms and any another weapon in turn has been locked and also disassembled in order to
effectively prevent firing. As per the current Black Lives matter movement, the black man
carries weapons.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Cornell, S. and Cornell, E., 2018. The 2nd amendment and firearms regulation: A venerable
tradition regulating liberty while securing public safety.
Epstein, L. and Konig, D.T., 2019. The strange story of the 2nd amendment in the federal
courts, and why it matters. Wash. UJL & Pol'y, 60, p.147.
Halbrook, S.P., 2020. The Right to Bear Arms: For Me, but Not for Thee. Harv. JL & Pub.
Pol'y, 43, p.331.
Lerner, R.L., 2020. The 2nd amendment and the Spirit of the People. Harv. JL & Pub. Pol'y, 43,
p.319.
O'Scannlain, D.F., 2019. Glorious Revolution to American Revolution: The English Origin of
the competent to carry firearmss. Notre Dame L. Rev., 95, p.397.
Põiklik, P., 2016. People’s competent to carry firearmss: Arguments on the meaning of the 2nd
amendment to the US Constitution in District of Columbia v. Heller. Journal of
Language and Politics, 15(2), pp.173-192.
Pollard, J.S., 2019. “To Keep and Bear Arms": Heller and the public understanding of arms
rights (Doctoral dissertation).
Ruben, E. and Blocher, J., 2017. From Theory to Doctrine: An Empirical Analysis of the
competent to carry firearmss After Heller. Duke LJ, 67, p.1433.
Timpson, C.M., 2018. 2nd amendment Challenges: What Level of Constitutional Scrutiny
Applies?.
Winkler, A., 2018. Is the 2nd amendment Becoming Irrelevant. Ind. LJ, 93, p.253.
Zick, T., 2018. The 2nd amendment as a Fundamental Right. Hastings Const. LQ, 46, p.621.
Zuidema, S., 2018. An Illusory Right: Revisiting Illinois' competent to carry firearmss. U. Ill. L.
Rev. Online, p.228.
Online
OPINION OF THE COURTDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER554 U. S. 570 (2008). 2020.
[Online]. Available through:
<https://msflo986656.app.box.com/s/7wp4lo6xdp5lyx06mvtwxaoxhmiy5i6q/file/
611331868130>

Politics Changed the Reading of the 2nd amendment —and Can Change It Again. 2019.
[Online]. Available through: <https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/politics-
changed-the-reading-of-the-second-amendmentand-can-change-it-again>
The supreme court’s worst decision of my tenure. 2019. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/john-paul-stevens-court-failed-gun-
control/587272/>