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...
Before a person may be charged with a crime it must first be established that a crime has been committed. This violation is called:
a. Actus Reus. b. Mens Rea. c. Inchoate offense. d. Concurrence.
Which of the following is part of psychodrama?
A. Enactment of past situations B. Enactment of present situations C. Enactment of future situations D. All of the above E. None of the above
The deserved-punishment approach requires sanctions be administered solely for the goal of incapacitation.
Answer the following statement true (T) or false (F)
What tests do the courts use to determine whether a department is discriminating against a protected class?
a. population comparisons b. four-fifths rule c. the McDonnell Douglas rule d. all of these choices