Does The Bill of Rights protect citizens from any type of gun control?

Answer 1

Second Amendmant of the U.S. Constiution

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.



Annotations
In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.


In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''7


Since this decision, Congress has placed greater limitations on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms,8 and proposals for national registration or prohibition of firearms altogether have been made.9 At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward an answer.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

Answer 2

not completely. the 2nd and 9th amendments are what enable US electorate to very own weapons. incredibly, the 2nd substitute in basic terms helps weapons to be owned to sort an effective protection rigidity, yet for the reason that that may not mandatory anymore, it incredibly is incredibly the 9th substitute that helps weapons to be owned, through fact it incredibly is a rule for analyzing the invoice of rights and shape and equates to "Any authentic granted to a citizen by the form can't be taken away by act of government." despite if different regulations already shrink gun administration. Convicted felons can't very own a gun, nor can persons below the criminal age, nor can persons with severe psychological ailment. computerized firearms at the instant are not approved for use or possession of the final public, and particular severe means weapons are challenge to stricter gun administration legislations. in the united kingdom, in the past the close to end ban on handguns, the regulations have been in some techniques lots stricter. everybody could prepare to have a firearms license, however the regulation helps the police to run extensive historic past tests on the owner previous to issuing the enable and there are very reliable rules on locking the weapons away, not shop it loaded, and so on. that each physique ended after the Dunblane college taking photos, which brought about variations to limit all handguns. In consequence, the prevalent public substitute into given an option to grant a sturdy reason they could be allowed to maintain handguns and that they could not think of of one. Shotguns are nonetheless approved, challenge to the above rules, for searching.

Answer 3

The constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. Second amendment I think.