What does the Second Amendment say about guns?
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads in full: “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.”
Why was the Second Amendment necessary?
The Second Amendment was meant to help the people protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Just like the revolutionaries who fought against the King of England, they wanted to maintain their right to “bear arms” in case the new government began to take away their rights.
What rights are protected in the 2nd Amendment?
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.
Is the Second Amendment right to own a Gun unlimited?
Like most constitutional rights, the Heller Court explained, “the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” In the years since that decision, there’s been a flood of legal challenges to federal and state gun control laws.
Does the Second Amendment protect a private or public right?
Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.
What are the limits on the right to own guns?
The Second Amendment: What Are the Limits on the Right to Own Guns? 1 Gun Rights Are Individual Rights. 2 Some Gun Control Is Constitutional. 3 Restrictions on Some Gun Owners. 4 Restrictions on Some Types of Guns. 5 Guns in Public. 6 Buying and Selling Guns. 7 Talking to a Lawyer.
Is the right to own a gun linked to militia service?
For decades, many scholars and courts interpreted the amendment as preserving states’ authority to keep militias, which would mean that the right to have firearms was linked to militia service. But in District of Columbia v.