Mediaboss Marketing

Second Amendment: The right to bear armsWhat is the Second Amendment?There are two principle versions of the Second Amendment: one version was passed by Congress, while the other is found in the copies distributed to each individual state and later ratified by themAs passed by the Congress:A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.As ratified by the States: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.The Second Amendment Defined:The Second Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.Stipulations of the 2nd Amendment:The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms.The right to arm oneself is viewed as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, the right to bear arms was instituted within the Bill of Rights to suppress insurrection, participate and uphold the law, enable the citizens of the United States to organize a militia, and to facilitate the natural right to self-defense.The Second Amendment was developed as a result of the tyrannous rule of the British parliament. Colonists were often oppressed and forced to pay unjust taxes at the hand of the unruly parliament. As a result, the American people yearned for an Amendment that would guarantee them the right to bear arms and protect themselves against similar situations. The Second Amendment was drafted to provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States through the ability to raise and support militias.Court Cases Tied into the Second AmendmentIn District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm to use for traditionally lawful purposes, such as defending oneself within their home or on their property. The court case ruled that the Amendment was not connected to service in a militia.ControversyThe gun debate in the United States widely revolves around the intended interpretation of the Second Amendment. Those who support gun rights claim that the founding fathers developed and subsequently ratified the Second Amendment to guarantee the individuals right to keep and bear arms. Those who want more stringent gun laws feel that the founding fathers directed this Amendment solely to the formation of militias and are thus, at least by theory, archaic.State Timeline for Ratification of the Bill of RightsNew Jersey:November 20, 1789; rejected article IIMaryland:December 19, 1789; approved allNorth Carolina:December 22, 1789; approved allSouth Carolina: January 19, 1790; approved allNew Hampshire: January 25, 1790; rejected article IIDelaware: January 28, 1790; rejected article INew York: February 27, 1790; rejected article IIPennsylvania: March 10, 1790; rejected article IIRhode Island: June 7, 1790; rejected article IIVermont: November 3, 1791; approved allVirginia: December 15, 1791; approved all

Second Amendment: The right to bear arms What is the Second Amendment? There are two principle versions of the Second Amendment: one version was passed by Congress, while the other is found in the copies distributed to each individual state and later ratified by them

As passed by the Congress:A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment Defined:

The Second Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.

The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.

Stipulations of the 2nd Amendment:

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms.

The right to arm oneself is viewed as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, the right to bear arms was instituted within the Bill of Rights to suppress insurrection, participate and uphold the law, enable the citizens of the United States to organize a militia, and to facilitate the natural right to self-defense.

Read the original here:

2nd Amendment - Laws

Text of Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Origins: Having been oppressed by a professional army, the founding fathers of the United States had no use for establishing one of their own. Instead, they decided that an armed citizenry makes the best army of all. General George Washington created regulation for the aforementioned "well-regulated militia," which would consist of every able-bodied man in the country. Controversy: The Second Amendment holds the distinction of being the only amendment to the Bill of Rights that essentially goes unenforced. The U.S. Supreme Court has never struck down any piece of legislation on Second Amendment grounds, in part because justices have disagreed on whether the amendment is intended to protect the right to bear arms as an individual right, or as a component of the "well-regulated militia." Interpretations of the Second Amendment: There are three predominant interpretations of the Second Amendment: The civilian militia interpretation, which holds that the Second Amendment is no longer valid, having been intended to protect a militia system that is no longer in place. The individual rights interpretation, which holds that the individual right to bear arms is a basic right on the same order as the right to free speech. The median interpretation, which holds that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to bear arms but is restricted by the militia language in some way. Where the Supreme Court Stands:

The only Supreme Court ruling in U.S. history that has focused primarily on the issue of what the Second Amendment really means is U.S. v. Miller (1939), which is also the last time the Court examined the amendment in any serious way. In Miller, the Court affirmed a median interpretation holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, but only if the arms in question are those that would be useful as part of a citizen militia. Or maybe not; interpretations vary, partly because Miller is not an exceptionally well-written ruling.

In Parker v. District of Columbia (March 2007), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban on grounds that it violates the Second Amendment's guarantee of an individual right to bear arms. The case is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, which may soon address the meaning of the Second Amendment. Almost any standard would be an improvement over Miller.

View original post here:

Second Amendment - The Text, Origins, and Meaning of the ...

Lyle Denniston looks at recent statements from retired Justice John Paul Stevens about limiting gun rights, and a political reality that runs counter to that idea.

As a result of [Supreme Court] rulings, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were well regulated, has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of the draftsmen. As so amended, it would read: 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear armswhen serving in the militiashall not be infringed.

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in an opinion column posted online April 11 byThe Washington Post. It is excerpted from his new book,Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.The article was republishedinThe Poston April 13.

There is an old saying about the Constitution that, like a lot of old sayings, is at least partly an exaggeration: The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. However, that is very close to the truth about the Second Amendment.

From its inclusion in the Constitution in 1791 until 2008, it was not understood to give Americans a personal right to have a gun. And then it changed, in a profound way.

Prior to 2008, there was a public conversation often, in academic writings funded by the National Rifle Association about whether the Amendment should go beyond protecting the arming of state militias, to allow Americans to arm themselves for personal use.

The Supreme Court finally accepted that expanded view, in the 2008 decision inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller. That ruling applied only to federal laws, or to laws enacted in the federal enclave that is the nations capital city. Two years later, though, in the case ofMcDonald v. City of Chicago, the court extended the broad new right nationwide, applying it to state and local laws, too. Both decisions divided the Justices 5 to 4, and Justice Stevens, then on the Court, dissented each time.

It is to be expected, perhaps, that a member of the court might well want, after retirement, to see the Constitution changed so that it reflected the views that the Justice had while on the court. Of course, retired judges, too, have free speech rights, and they can add importantly to public discourse if they continue to speak out.

The rest is here:

Does the Second Amendment need to be amended?

Published: Sunday, April 13, 2014, 4:45p.m.

WASHINGTON The push and pull over the Second Amendment right to bear arms is heating up again, thanks in part to a former Supreme Court justice's new book.

On Friday, the high court will consider whether to hear a challenge to a New Jersey law restricting the right to carry guns in public. If the court grants the petition, it would be the most important gun control case since the justices upheld the right to keep handguns at home for self-defense in 2008.

While the justices ponder what the Constitution's framers meant with the words A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, former Justice John Paul Stevens suggests it be rewritten.

In his new book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, Stevens, 93, advocates adding the words when serving in the militia to reduce the number of firearms-related deaths about 88 per day that occur in the nation.

Stevens was on the losing side of the court's 5-4 ruling in 2008 that established the right to keep handguns at home for self-defense. Two years later, he was again in the minority when the court ruled that Chicago could not prohibit private citizens from owning handguns.

Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands, Stevens writes. Those emotional arguments would be nullified by the adoption of my proposed amendment. The amendment certainly would not silence the powerful voice of the gun lobby; it would merely eliminate its ability to advance one mistaken argument.

The gun lobby seeks to move in the opposite direction. Despite losses at federal district and appeals courts, groups including the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners Foundation back the effort by New Jersey gun owners to legalize gun possession outside the home.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry weapons for the purpose of self-defense not just for self-defense within the home, but for self-defense, period, the NRA argues in its brief to the high court.

New Jersey law enforcement groups defend the state's requirement that citizens prove a justifiable need to carry handguns outside the home, whether openly or concealed from view. In their brief, they claim the law qualifies as a presumptively lawful, longstanding regulation that does not burden conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment's guarantee.

Go here to read the rest:

Gun rights to return to Supreme Courts agenda

Excellent piece in the Washington Post yesterdayfrom retiredAssociate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court John Paul Stevens on the Second Amendment, how its original intent has been twisted by the gun lobby, and the five word additionthat could clear up a blurry bit of the language that has allowed the NRA to get a philosophical toehold. The column is an excerpt from Stevens' new book,"Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution."I won't steal Stevens' thunder by telling youwhat the five words are, but it's a solid fix and his thoughts in support of that fix are well worth reading, even if you'll never see it implemented in your lifetime.

Lest you think the reliably liberal Stevens' argument is just an example of his gun-grabbin' politics, Stevens hearkens back to the days before the NRA sold the American public on the idea that Thomas Jefferson supporteda God-Given Right to Bear Flamethrowers,recalling his owntime on the bench and a comment by former Chief Justice Warren Burger a long-time Republican and strict Constitutional constructionist, nominated to the court by noted liberal pinko Richard M. Nixon to make his point about how drastically America's interpretation of the Second Amendment has been changed by pro-gun propaganda in the past thirty years or so:

When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.

Organizations such as the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and mounted a vigorous campaign claiming that federal regulation of the use of firearms severely curtailed Americans Second Amendment rights. Five years after his retirement, during a 1991 appearance on The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, Burger himself remarked that the Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.

See the article here:

Former SCOTUS Justice Stevens: five little words can fix the Second Amendment