I NEEE NEED THIS AS A DRAFT

I NEEE NEED THIS AS A DRAFT PLEASE The Second Amendment The discourse concerning the Second Amendment’s clarity focuses on whether the provision shields an individual’s right to own arms or the state’s collective right to keep their militias free from federal probing (Winkler, 2006). The last instance in which the Supreme Court addressed this issue was in 1939 in the case of United States v. Miller. The Court opined that the Second Amendment protected the state’s collective rights instead of individual rights (Winkler, 2006). However, a contemporary legal examination has appraised the collective rights position and contends that the Second Amendment is targeted to protect a person’s “right to carry arms for individual defense against others.” Winkler (2006) explains that in the past decades, the individual rights position prevailed in a federal circuit court and assumed the principal interpretation in Bush’s Department of Justice. Therefore, it is evident that the individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment has taken the lead in American legal thought. Nonetheless, to understand the contention surrounding the Second Amendment’s explication, it is best to place it in its historical context. Origin of the Second Amendment The United States citizens faced political oppression courtesy of a professional army in the years leading to independence. In light of that, the founding fathers focused on something other than creating their army. Rather, they agreed that an armed citizenry was the best army to ensure that the United States remained secure from external attacks (Shalhope, 1982). As such, General George Washington formulated the regulation in the discussion, quoted as a “well-regulated militia” that would include all non-disabled men in the country (Shalhope, 1982). The Controversy and Existing Interpretations of the Second Amendment The Amendment is distinct, the single Amendment in the Bill of Rights remains unacted. The Supreme Court has never removed laws on the Second Amendment grounds, partly since the preceding justices contradicted whether the provision anticipated protecting individual rights to own arms or referred to the states’ “well-regulated militia” (Segall, 2015). Currently, three principal interpretations of the Second Amendment exist. One explication provides that the Second Amendment is currently invalid since it is targeted to protect a military framework that does not exist in the contemporary U.S. Another explication subscribes to the individual rights position, which assumes that an individual’s right to own guns is a fundamental right like the freedom of speech as a right (Zick, 2018). Lastly, the median explication considers that the Second Amendment intends not to shield individual rights to possess firearms; however, the militia language in the provision restricts it. The 1939 case of U.S v. Miller remains the single historic Supreme Court ruling that concentrated on the basic issue of what the Second Amendment meant. On the same note, this was the last instance in which the Court critically analyzed the provisions of the Amendment. In Miller’s case, the Court maintained the median interpretation, maintaining that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own arms; even so, it is only applicable in instances where the arms in would be important concerning a citizen militia (Winkler, 2006). However, this position may vary since individuals interpret provisions differently and partly since the Miller ruling needed to be more exceptionally well written. More controversies can be drawn from the Parker v. District of Columbia case in 2007. In the Parker case, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the bans on handguns by Washington D.C. on the premise that the ban violated the Second Amendment’s protection of a person’s right to possess guns (Kohm, 2007). The U.S. Supreme court further addressed this issue in the appeal, District of Columbia v. Heller, which addressed the Second Amendment’s contemporary meaning. In the later ruling, the Supreme Court gave a 5-4 ruling affirming the appellate Court’s ruling (Ruben & Blocher, 2017). As such, the Supreme Court endorsed the “individual-right” position of the Second Amendment while rejecting the “Collective-right” position. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority ruling arguing that the operative clause, as rephrased, “the people’s right to own and carry firearms, shall not be violated,” codified individual rights drawn from English common law and codified in the 1689 English Bill of Rights. Most of the Justices opined that the preamble of the Second Amendment, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the protection of a free state,” was in line with the explication when comprehended subject to the forefathers’ surmise that disarming citizens was an effective way to destroy citizen militia (Zick, 2018). They also established that the United States v. Miller appraised an “individual-right” approach instead of a “collective-right” position, contradictory to the presiding explications of the decision in the 20th century. The Supreme Court gave a unanimous decision in Miller, holding that federal legislation mandating citizens to register sawed-off shotguns does not infringe on the Second Amendment provision since those arms had no “reasonable relationship to preserving or a well-supervised militia.” Ultimately, the Court maintained that the legislators comprehended self-defense as a right to be “the chief element” of an individual’s right to carry and possess firearms (Kohm, 2007). The Second Amendment expressly protected the right “to defend one’s home and hearth using firearms.” Ruben & Blocher (2017) report that in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, Justice John Paul Stevens gave a dissenting opinion. He observed that the decision of the Court “did not establish contemporary evidence appraising the position that the Amendment targeted to curtail the congress’ power to regulate civilian weapon use.” Therein, the Justice censored the Court for trying to diminish the preamble’s significance by ignoring the operative clause’s disambiguation ((Ruben & Blocher, 2017). As such, the Court had misinterpreted the Miller ruling while neglecting succeeding rulings of “many judges” who appraised the collective-right position of the connotation of the Second Amendment. In conclusion, the Second Amendment is one of the 10 Amendments forming the Bill of Rights that the U.S. ratified in 1971. However, the Second Amendment has sparked great debate since its inception, with proponents and opponents supporting different interpretations. Currently, the main two contention positions assume either an “individual-rights” perspective or a “collective-rights” perspective subject to the facts of an issue. Nonetheless, this is a delicate matter that the U.S. Supreme Court needs to critically analyze, for it affects gun control legislations within States and the individual citizens’ rights to purchase, possess and carry firearms. The effect of the interpretation on gun control is of greater importance, which remains an unexplored legal area in the United States. The interpretation of this Amendment should consider the increase in mass shootings over the past decade, for instance, the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas during a country music concert that claimed 58 lives. On the same note, the interpretation should consider individuals’ rights to own firearms for their safety, the protection of their homes, and the protection of their property.

******CLICK ORDER NOW BELOW AND OUR WRITERS WILL WRITE AN ANSWER TO THIS ASSIGNMENT OR ANY OTHER ASSIGNMENT, DISCUSSION, ESSAY, HOMEWORK OR QUESTION YOU MAY HAVE. OUR PAPERS ARE PLAGIARISM FREE*******."