Constitution and Gun Restriction

The Supreme Court has taken two cases concerning the Second Amendment, the

District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. Both cases were

landmark decisions in favor of the Second Amendment. Certain language in both

cases had to be interpreted what the Second Amendment meant when it was put

together. This essay will discuss our Constitutional right to the possession of

firearms and Supreme court cases on the Second Amendment.

In the District of Columbia v. Heller case determined that arms in the Second

Amendment meant handguns. It also determines that it is an individuals right to

possess a firearm and lawfully use it for self-defense within the home. This was a

huge win for gun owners and it gave states a guideline to follow in upcoming cases.

It was determined that the District of Columbias gun ban was unconstitutional and

also that individuals have the right to keep an assembled and loaded firearm in their

own home for protection.

McDonald v. City of Chicago did not only discuss the Second Amendment but

also discussed the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. The due

process clause means the states will not be a denial of life, liberty, or property by

the government outside the sanction of law. The states cannot have a handgun ban

unless in certain cases such as mental illness. This ruling has helped clear up any

misunderstandings about the Second Amendment.

The restriction of firearms or gun ownership does fall under the National

Firearms Act of 1934. This act limits or restricts certain kinds of firearms including

fully automatic, suppressors, and overall length requirements of certain firearms.

This act is primarily enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (BATFE). Gun ownership is a right but lawful gun owners need to be held

to a high standard. Restriction of lawful gun owners rights will only be detrimental

to the Constitution, and only reassures the criminal element of easy victims.

Conversely, criminal repercussions associated with criminal or irresponsible firearms

usage must be prosecuted aggressively and swiftly. Persons with malice criminal

intent to hurt or kill other persons, do not pay any attention, or have any respect for

arbitrary gun laws put forth by law makers. To think a person who is willing to

commit murder, the most severe of crimes, is concerned with any misdemeanor or

other infractions along the way is irresponsible and reckless.

The right to bear arms is now protected by two Supreme Court decisions and

two Amendments. The compounding restrictions put upon lawful gun owners has

no effect on any criminal who has felonious intent with a firearm. Statistics prove

that areas with the most restrictive gun laws, see no decline in criminal acts with a

firearm. These irresponsible laws are created out of emotion, rather than common

sense, science, and adherence to the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. Criminals

will always find access to restricted items, noticed by illicit drug epidemics, and

rising drug use. Firearms are a necessary tool in this country, restricting law abiding

gun owners a Constitutional right because of a criminal demographic, would be the

equivalent of outlawing all prescription medicines due to a criminal element using

them illicitly.

References

"District of Columbia v. Heller." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 12 Apr. 2017.

Web. 15 Apr. 2017.

 History.com Staff. "The U.S. Constitution." History.com. A&E Television Networks,

2009. Web. 15 Apr. 2017.

"McDonald v. City of Chicago." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 12 Apr. 2017.

Web. 15 Apr. 2017.

Staff, LII. "Due Process." LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., 06 Aug. 2007.

Web. 15 Apr. 2017.