300 likes | 588 Views
The Second Amendment. The Right to Bear Arms. The Second 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. . Second Amendment Trivia! ORIGINAL Wording.
E N D
The Second Amendment The Right to Bear Arms
The Second 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.
Second Amendment Trivia!ORIGINAL Wording • A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. • BUT no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
“right of the people to keep and bear arms” • But what was meant by adding “well-regulated militia” and “necessary to the security of a free state”? • Does it mean that you can only carry arms if you are in the militia? • Can guns only be used for national defense, or does that mean self-defense?
“right of the people to keep and bear arms” • Is the militia in 2005 mean the same thing as it did in 1787? • CENTRAL ARGUMENT! • Whether people have a right to bear arms as INDIVIDUALS, rather than just as part of an official militia.
Before the Second Amendment:Gun Control in England • There was the right to bear arms BUT • “as allowed by law” • NOT an absolute right. • FOR GOOD REASON!
The Citizen-Soldier in AmericaBEFORE the Revolution • Belief the part-time citizen-soldier would represent the values of his community. • Unlikely to become an instrument of oppression as a full-time professional soldier.
The Citizen-Soldier in AmericaBEFORE the Revolution • The citizen-soldier brought his own gun to the fight or protection of his community. • APOLOGY to the women in here. In 1776, they didn’t consider women as citizen soldiers!
But women were soldiers! • Nancy Hart in the American Revolution. • Guns certainly helped her!
Bearing Arms and the Constitution • What the Founders meant when they deleted the C.O. (conscientious objector) and the militia wording is STILL not clear.
Collective Rights v. Individual Rights: One Point of View (POV) • Some think the 2nd Amendment was designed ONLY to protect the rights of the states to have militias. • NOT the right of individuals to bear arms for their own self-defense. • “well-regulated militia” and “security of a free state” prove their point. • Restrictions on hunting and self-defense.
Collective Rights v. Individual Rights: Another POV • Individual rights were included in the militia. • Militia = the body of the people. • Militia then includes EVERYONE in the community. • ALSO the Bill of Rights was included to protect INDIVIDUAL rights, not the states!
Collective Rights v. Individual Rights: Another POV (cont.) • Also the Second Amendment says “right of the PEOPLE” – meant to protect individual rights?
The Second Amendment and The Courts • Barron v. Baltimore (1831) • The Second Amendment makes it so the FEDERAL government cannot make laws limiting guns. • BUT!!!!! It doesn’t stop the states from regulating guns.
The Second Amendment and The Courts • Presser v. Illinois (1886) • Continued on Barron. • Illinois could have a law saying ONLY the state militia could drill or parade with arms.
The Second Amendment and The Courts • US v. Miller (1939) • National Firearms Act of 1934 required registration of sawed-off shotguns. • Mr. Miller said this violated his right to bear arms. • DOES IT?
The Second Amendment and The Courts • Miller Ruling: • Possessing a sawed-off shotgun is NOT related to the militia and not protected by the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment and The Courts • Because of the Miller Ruling – every time gun control laws go through the Congress and the President – they have to SPECIFY the weapons and prove they don’t go with a well armed militia.
The Second Amendment and The Courts • No federal court has EVER struck down gun control legislation as a violation of the Second Amendment.
You Decide! • Quilici v. Morton Grove • The town of Morton Grove, Illinois passed a law to ban possession of handguns in the home. • Persons with guns had to turn them in to the police.
You Decide • Guns for recreational shooting had to be stored in gun clubs. • Police, security guards, armed forces exempted. • Mr. Quilici believes his Second Amendment rights are being violated. • DO YOU AGREE / DISAGREE?
Morton Grove Decision • The Federal Government can’t make laws regulating guns – but local communities can!
The Future of Gun Control • Pro-Gun: National Rifle Association • If the 2nd Amendment is infringed – no other constitutional rights are safe. • Just because criminals use guns does not mean that law-abiding citizens should be denied the right to bear arms. • Costs of democracy. We have to live with hate speech to have all speech.
The Future of Gun Control • Advocates for Gun Control: (Brady Law) • No right is absolute in the Bill of Rights. • Right to bear arms must be weighed against potential harm it can cause society. • Harm is more deadly than speech.