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. 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. 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. 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”? 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? Is the militia in 2005 mean the same thing as it did in 1787? CENTRAL ARGUMENT! 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 There was the right to bear arms BUT –“as allowed by law” –NOT an absolute right. »FOR GOOD REASON!

The Citizen-Soldier in America BEFORE the Revolution Belief the part-time citizen-soldier would represent the values of his community. 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. Unlikely to become an instrument of oppression as a full- time professional soldier.

The Citizen-Soldier in America BEFORE the Revolution The citizen-soldier brought his own gun to the fight or protection of his community. 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. 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. 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 2 nd Amendment was designed ONLY to protect the rights of the states to have militias. Some think the 2 nd 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. 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? 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 Quilici v. Morton Grove The town of Morton Grove, Illinois passed a law to ban possession of handguns in the home. 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. Persons with guns had to turn them in to the police.

You Decide Guns for recreational shooting had to be stored in gun clubs. Guns for recreational shooting had to be stored in gun clubs. Police, security guards, armed forces exempted. Police, security guards, armed forces exempted. Mr. Quilici believes his Second Amendment rights are being violated. Mr. Quilici believes his Second Amendment rights are being violated. DO YOU AGREE / DISAGREE? DO YOU AGREE / DISAGREE?

Morton Grove Decision The Federal Government can’t make laws regulating guns – but local communities can! The Federal Government can’t make laws regulating guns – but local communities can!

The Future of Gun Control Pro-Gun: National Rifle Association Pro-Gun: National Rifle Association –If the 2 nd 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) 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.