Operative Clause. In Scalia's view, the text and history of the amendment's operative clause i. Congress merely codified a widely recognized right; it did not create a new right Id. Prefatory Clause. Interpretation of the Second Amendment. Scalia argues that the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment is supported by scholars, courts, and legislators.
Also, none of the Supreme Court's precedents forecloses the Court's individual right interpretation. He rejects Stevens' notion that that Miller United States v. Miller, U. But it rejected the rational basis standard. The enumeration of that right, Scalia reasons: takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.
A constitutional guarantee subject of future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all Id. In Stevens' opinion, the amendment protects the individual right to bear arms only for certain military purposes and does not limit the authority of legislatures to regulate private, civilian use of firearms Id.
For example in Catch Heller writes "Actually, there were many officers clubs that Yossarian had not helped build, but he was proudest of the one on Pianosa" The fear of communism is ruining lives. The country moves closer and closer to the Korean war. The organization has a Marxist-Socialist ideological base and has been terrorizing Columbia for some time now.
The most recent development is Senator Martha Catalina Daniels was shot twice in the head and killed on March 3. The two sides in this case have set out very different interpretations of the Amendment. Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.
Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Potter ed. Marks, 3 East, , K. Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.
Operative Clause. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, U. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language reprinted hereinafter Webster similar. The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Laws ch. Cushing ed. Duke, 42Tex. Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e. American Civil Liberties Union, U. United States, U. In Muscarello v. Hall eds. That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts. See 2 Oxford No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding.
But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights Those sources would have had little occasion to use it except in discussions about the standing army and the militia. See, e. Fitzpatrick ed. Of course, as we have said, the fact that the phrase was commonly used in a particular context does not show that it is limited to that context, and, in any event, we have given many sources where the phrase was used in nonmilitary contexts.
Justice Stevens uses the same excuse for dismissing the state constitutional provisions analogous to the Second Amendment that identify private-use purposes for which the individual right can be asserted. See post, at That analysis is faulty. A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics.
Veit, K. Bickford eds. It is always perilous to derive the meaning of an adopted provision from another provision deleted in the drafting process. It was not meant to exempt from military service those who objected to going to war but had no scruples about personal gunfights. Brock, Pacifism in the United States ; see M. See 5 Stat. Flanders eds. This ruling was issued on June 26, Specifically, it struck down part of the Firearms Control Regulation Act of as unconstitutional, based on a majority interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Within the boundaries of Washington, D. In , six DC residents filed a lawsuit, challenging the constitutionality of this law. Eventually, the case reached the Supreme Court, the first time since that the high court had chosen to rule on a Second Amendment issue.
State, 1Gill , Md. Breyer was joined in his dissent by Justices Ginsberg, Souter, and Stevens. XVII, in 3 Thorpe , This structure restrains this country, dearest treasures in numerous exhibits ranging, from past to present. I also want to experience a different culture. But [whether the law is unconstitutional] requires us to focus on practicalities, the problems that called it into being, its relation to those objectives—in a word, the details Id.
In Nunn v. Breyer asserts that the District's law would not be unconstitutional under a rational-basis test, which requires a court to uphold a regulation so long as it bears a rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose. District Court in Washington, D. The Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for respondent. Interpretation of the Second Amendment.
XVII, in 3 Thorpe , It was considered very unusual and was critisised by reviewers when it was first published in Even clearer was Justice Baldwin. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force.
See 5 Stat. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. Order a custom research paper on ANY topic. In the U.
Eventually, the case reached the Supreme Court, the first time since that the high court had chosen to rule on a Second Amendment issue. Justices Stevens and Breyer filed separate dissenting opinions. Applying a balancing test that takes into account extensive empirical evidence of the magnitude of gun crimes and violence would show that the D. It was one of 10 original amendments in the Constitution. Use our sample or order a custom written research paper from Paper Masters.
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Potter ed. Boyd ed.
Finally, the court said the requirement that lawfully firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled, locked amounted to a complete ban on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense Id. Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.
How to Write a Research Paper on District of Columbia v Heller This page is designed to show you how to write a research project on the topic you see here. It would fail constitutional muster under any of the standards the Court had applied in the past to enumerated constitutional rights Id. Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Prefatory Clause.