Gun Control Debate: Political Involvement and Legal Perspectives

This essay examines the complex interplay between gun control, political involvement (both conventional and unconventional), and legal interpretations, particularly focusing on the Second Amendment. It references the landmark Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, which affirmed ...Read More

Running head: QUESTION ANSWER
Question Answer
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors Note

1QUESTION ANSWER
The United States is a country of elected democracy. This governance system permits the
U.S. citizens to involve directly in political life by making an effort to inspire the public plans of
their government. Through this process different persons and group of persons are allowed to
choose several forms of actions for various purposes. Conventional policies include voting
rights, running for office, making contributions to contenders or writing members of Congress.
These policies are very common and extensively accepted worldwide. On the other hand, the
unconventional involvement are not as widely accepted as conventional policies and habitually
controversial. The unconventional involvements include several tactics such as marching,
rejecting, refusing to observe law of the land, or simply protesting. Individuals and groups have
flourished or declined to use both forms of involvement at dissimilar times in the history of the
nation. Therefore, the major difference between conventional and unconventional political
involvement arises regarding the acceptability of both these aspects (De Rooij and Reeskens
2014).
Analyzing unconventional political involvement of youth in modern society involves an
initial theoretical exertion to explain the elementary thoughts of “political involvement” and
“unconventionality”. The various categories of unconventional political involvement are:
 Marching;
 Rejecting or boycotting;
 refusing to observe law of the land; and
 Protesting.
Summary
On 26th June 2008, the Supreme Court of the U.S. in District of Columbia v. Heller case
held that the Second Amendment delivers a specific right which ensures that possessing

2QUESTION ANSWER
independent firearms for service in state paramilitaries and to use firearms for generally
legitimate purposes, including home self-defense is legal. It was the first verdict of the Supreme
Court to inspect the value of the Second Amendment subsequently the United States v. Miller
(1939).
The District of Columbia vs. Heller case was first originated in the U.S. District Court in
Washington, D.C in the year 2003. In the case of Parker v. District of Columbia, six citizens of
the federal District of Columbia asked the court to implement three aspects of the Firearms
Control Regulation Act (1975) of the district, which generally prohibited the record keeping of
firearms, banned the carrying of handguns without license or any other handguns which are
“deadly or harmful” capable of being hidden, and mandates that it must be legitimately held.
The district court issued a motion for dismissal from the state. In 2007, The United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, having decided that only one of the
claimants, Dick Heller, was entitled to sue, dismissed the first and third clauses and prohibited
the implementation of the second. A certiorari was filed by the government, and on 18th March,
2008, the verbal arguments were heard by the Supreme Court.
On 26th June, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appeal court in a 5–4 ruling.
In so doing, it supported the meaning of Second Amendment’s doctrine of the “individual-right”
and opposed a competing explanation of the “collective-right” theory, which safeguards a mutual
right of states to preserve paramilitaries or the right of a person to keep and carry arms in
association with paramilitaries. Some authors argued that “the right of a person to keep and carry
shall not be violated” as it is summarized in the English Bill of Rights (1689) and delivered from
English common law.

3QUESTION ANSWER
Lastly, the court stated that, since the framers considered the right of self-
protection to be “the central component” of the right to hold and carry arms, the Second
Amendment expressly safeguards the right to “use arms in protection of home and family” (Page
2011).

4QUESTION ANSWER
Reference
De Rooij, E.A. and Reeskens, T., 2014. 9. Conventional and Unconventional Political
Participation. In Value Contrasts and Consensus in Present-Day Europe (pp. 185-212). Brill.
Page, D.R., 2011. Dangerous and Unusual Misdirection: A Look at the Common Law Tradition
of Prohibiting Going Armed with Dangerous and Unusual Weapons to the Terror of the People,
as Cited in District of Columbia versus Heller. Available at SSRN 1859395.