Law

Are there any legitimate restrictions on gun ownership?\

Introduction

The modern era is heavily dependent on the TV as their chief source of information or news about the rest of the world. Since the nations have simultaneous access to the violent new stories that are exaggerated and sensationalized to generate more and more ratings all over the international television channels, newspapers and even the internet, a lot of people have started thinking whether the U.S. Constitutions' 2nd Amendment is restrictive enough or not. According to a case in the Supreme Court recently, there was an evaluation of the said Amendment and its context. A question needed answering which were whether there were any legitimate restrictions on gun ownership. According to the ruling of the Supreme Court, other Constitutional Amendments and the dangerous times, there are not many legitimate restrictions in the ownership of firearms.

Thesis Statement

“There are not a lot of legitimate restrictions in ownership of firearms.”

 Discussion

In the Court case of Heller versus District of Columbia (D.C), there are arguments which cover almost all possible aspects of the 2nd Amendment. From the year 1975, Columbian District has put a ban within the residents of D.C's homes, on the unlocked firearms' possession. The residents were required by law to store any and all firearms which were permissible in the Columbian District disassembled and unloaded or at least to be fitted with a trigger lock. It might be a problem for the people who are unfamiliar with firearms to figure out how this act would discourage the denizens of D.C from using the weapons as a defense. The fact of the matter is that the time taken for the assembly, loading and unlocking of the firearm renders the use of the weapon in defense, un-necessary.

The era of between 1770 and 1790 was exceptionally difficult for the American Colonists. They were still trying to get their legs under them after the huge defeat from the occupation force of the British, when the colonial people discovered that they had a shortage of weapon, clothing and food. The Continental Congress was unsuccessful in garnering enough essentials from the other colonies through monetary donations to take care of the army. Most of the men possessed only those weapons which they had brought with themselves. Later, the American Army was successful because of this very reason that they were able to round up enough people who were armed and possessed the will and spirit to fight. In the start of the War of revolution, only some unit has adequate weapons. It was something which was not lost on the drafters of the Bill of the Rights.

At the time when the initial ten amendment of the Constitution were put down during 1791, they did not intend, the rights which were listed, to be granted, rather they only desired to bring them to light. According to the Thomas (2010, p.85), the Bill of Right does not given an individual the right to free exercise of religion or freedom of speech, instead ...