The Second Amendment states, “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.” Explain why this statement is unclear and controversial.
What will be an ideal response?
According to the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Second Amendment was intended to
provide individual gun owners the right to own firearms, but left room for the possibility that the government could at least regulate, if not prohibit, the ownership of firearms. This ruling has left it
unclear as to whether the Second Amendment is an individual right or a right of the states to create and
arm militias. It also begs the question as to whether the right to bear arms was intended for individuals
or militias only. Finally, the issue of how much the government is allowed to regulate or prohibit the
ownership of firearms is still left up for debate.
You might also like to view...
Luminol reacts with proteins in blood to produce a dim white fluorescence on prints that contains traces of blood, but does not detect blood that has been wiped away from the surface
a. True b. False
Either the prosecutor’s office and/or the ______ usually handles an intake screening of a youth following referral to juvenile court.
A. probation department B. police department C. public defender’s office D. juvenile court clerk’s department
Programs that bring together a juvenile delinquent and the victims in a hope to negotiate a conclusion are called ________.
A. mutual interest meetings B. victim impact meetings C. retribution programs D. mediation programs E. counseling programs
The Supreme Court ruled in the _________________ decision that uncomfortable conditions are not unconstitutional but are part of the penalty that inmates pay for committing crimes
a. Wilson v. Seiter b. Bell v. Fuertado c. Huff v. South Carolina d. Brady v. Arizona