{"id":91,"date":"2023-01-30T15:21:45","date_gmt":"2023-01-30T15:21:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/?p=91"},"modified":"2023-01-30T15:21:46","modified_gmt":"2023-01-30T15:21:46","slug":"the-second-amendments-scope-evaluated-essentially-for-the-first-time-in-supreme-courts-history","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/2023\/01\/30\/the-second-amendments-scope-evaluated-essentially-for-the-first-time-in-supreme-courts-history\/","title":{"rendered":"The Second Amendment\u2019s scope evaluated essentially for the first time in Supreme Court\u2019s history"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The American legislation regarding individuals’ right to keep and bear firearms is unique in other world\u2019s perspective. One\u2019s right to carry and own guns is based on the bill of rights, and more specific it is based on the second amendment. According to the text, 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. However, the need for a citizens need for self-defense with firearms is broadly disputed in today\u2019s America, since society has changed since the declaration of the bill of rights.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, in case\u00a0New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen<\/em>, the New York State\u2019s Police had to apply for a license to carry firearms outside their homes. In other words, citizens needed a proper cause if they wanted to bear guns in public places. The petitioners in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen<\/em> claimed that this kind of action violates their rights, and the case was taken all the way to the Supreme Court. The court found that New York\u2019s system violated citizens\u2019 right to keep fire arms.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case I will scrutinize most in my blog text will be case\u00a0District of Columbia v. Heller<\/em>\u00a0from the year 2008. In this case was a question if policeman Heller (Petitioner) could buy and keep fire arms to self-defense. As we know, the first ten amendments aka the bill of rights are regulated to restrict federal powers from restricting individuals. However, part of the amendments can be contested also on a state level because of due process clause, which is incorporated to apply also states by the fourteenth amendment. In this case court didn\u2019t make a decision whether\u00a0the second amendment is incorporated or not, since D.C isn\u2019t a state but a federal enclave. The evaluation of the incorporation was given two years later in case McDonald v. Chicago<\/em>.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The facts of the case <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As I already briefly mentioned, in case District of Columbia v. Heller<\/em> Mr. Heller was a police officer who guarded the federal buildings in D.C, and during his office hours, he bore a gun with him. Heller however also wanted to have a gun at his home for self-defense, but Washington D.C had very strict gun regulations, and Heller wasn\u2019t allowed to do so. In the time people in D.C were allowed to have guns at their home disassembled and unloaded or bound by a trigger lock.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Supreme Court\u2019s argumentation & judicial interpretation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Heller <\/em>case was one of the first times in Supreme Court, where the court evaluated the meaning and scope of the second amendment. Last time the Supreme Court evaluated the scope of the second amendment in 1939 in case\u00a0United States v. Miller<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court had to interpretate what the phrase: \u2018\u2019A 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.\u2019\u2019 meant in 18th<\/sup> century and today\u2019s language. The question in particular was, if it was allowed to own firearms without being connected to a well regulated militia. The Supreme Court held that the word \u2018\u2019people\u2019\u2019 in the second amendment should be seen as all citizens, even though on the 18th<\/sup> century the people in this context most likely included only males who were eligible to fight and bear those guns. The second ambiguous word on the second amendment was the word \u2018\u2019militia\u2019\u2019. Because many historians and laymen would see the word militia mean only regulated and specified group of soldiers, and therefore second amendment shouldn\u2019t apply to normal citizen. However the Supreme Court argued that during the English reign militias were loosely regulated groups created by \u2018\u2019the people\u2018\u2019 and therefore anyone could have a right to keep and bear guns in the United States. The Court also evaluated what the phrase \u2018\u2019keep and bear arms\u2019\u2019 meant and the Court concluded that it\u2019s everyone\u2019s right to own and have guns even without a connection to militia. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court held a 5-4 decision and found that D.C\u2019s regulation violated citizens\u2019 right to bear and keep fire arms. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

After scrutinizing the Supreme Courts case\u00a0District of Columbia v. Heller<\/em>\u00a0and articles regarding it, I found that the gun laws are getting looser since everyone has a right to carry a gun in today\u2019s America. The second amendment is seen very sensitive right and its\u2019 restrictions are very easily seen as violation. Bear in mind that this case was given in 2008, but the same line of interpretation is also seen in the Bruen<\/em> case, which I mentioned in the earlier paragraphs, given in 2022.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

T. A. M. V.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Introduction The American legislation regarding individuals’ right to keep and bear firearms is unique in other world\u2019s perspective. One\u2019s right to carry and own guns is based on the bill of rights, and more specific it is based on the second amendment. According to the text, a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of … Continue reading The Second Amendment\u2019s scope evaluated essentially for the first time in Supreme Court\u2019s history<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":35805,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-91","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-scotus2023"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/35805"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=91"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":93,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91\/revisions\/93"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=91"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=91"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}