English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

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." seems pretty clear to me. I would like to understand how somthing so obvious, like "bearing arms" is so widely disputed "collective right vs Individual right". Even the wording infringed is obvious to me. Infringed would be a violation of a right. Where is the Supreme Courts stance when considering many notable infringments on an individuals ability to bear arms? Where is a great resource for finding this information in the future....yeah I know about wikipedia already, I need a source that is a little more comprehensive on past rulings, current rulings as well as upcoming rulings.

2006-08-17 18:53:30 · 1 answers · asked by James H 3 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

1 answers

If you want to read case-law, you can find Supreme Court opinions on both FindLaw.com and "www.law.cornell.edu". Both allow you to do full-text searches.

Another avenue is the use of the phrase "well-regulated militia". Look at the other references to militia in the Constitution and see how the rules would intersect with each other. Look at the history around the time the Constitution was written, and compare that to when the National Guard and the various state police departments were formed.

Also check the concept of Selective Incorporation. It's the doctrine that applies some (but not) of the Bill of Rights to state/local laws. The 2nd Amendment only applies to federal regulation of fire-arms, not state/local gun laws.

2006-08-17 18:59:36 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers