Jesus Serrano
10/1/2016 07:47:27 am
I agree with the court's decision. I believe that the second amendment protects one's rights to keep a firearm for protection, and that it is a fundamental right since it is in the Bill of Rights. Using firearms to protect oneself does no harm to public safety and it is usually areas with strict gun regulations that have the most gun related crimes. The 14th Amendment protects people's rights to own guns as it applies the Constitution to the states, and makes it so that the states cannot impose laws that strip people of their Constitutional rights.
Reply
Savannah
10/2/2016 09:20:48 pm
In the case it shows that the federal government tries to steal our rights. They do it by interpreting the amendments and applying them to they see fit. It is the courts job to make sure that doesn't happen.
Reply
10/3/2016 07:25:46 am
I agree. Also, this is a great example of the Supreme Court using the power of judicial review established in Marbury v Madison because it illustrates the Supreme Court using that power in modern times illustrating the necessity of this power because it is still in use today.
Kayla Hensley
10/2/2016 10:14:15 pm
Just because there are a lot of gun-related crimes in extremely regulated areas doesn't mean that the government should not try to help. They shouldn't ban guns but reasonable regulation is not a bad idea.
Reply
There should be something done to help those places with lots of gun violence but the problem is that even though we can keep legally owned guns out of the hands of criminals we cannot stop them from buying on the black market and using the illegally owned guns to harm people. It is this fact that proves why people should be allowed to use their second amendment right to bear arms to protect themselves in these problematic areas. 10/1/2016 03:05:23 pm
I agree with the Supreme Court's decision. The second amendment allows for people to protect themselves using firearms. The fourteenth amendment states that people cannot be deprived of the right to liberty or property without due process of law. In the case of McDonald v Chicago people were deprived of their liberty to protect themselves using firearms and the guns they own which are property. Therefore, the restrictive handgun laws are unconstitutional and break both the second and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution.
Reply
Jesus
10/3/2016 12:11:04 am
The Fourteenth Amendment also says that the state governments cannot pass laws that restrict citizens of their rights protected under the constitution. It basically puts state governments beneath the federal government. The decision made in this court case protects people in Chicago from having their 2nd Amendment rights taken away.
Reply
Meghan Simons
10/2/2016 01:35:24 pm
This a very controversial topic in the U.S. today but I believe the court made the right decision. When they started the process of incorporation it applied the 14th Amendment to the states, which gives the people equal protection of the laws. Therefore if everyone else in the U.S. has the right to keep and bear arms then the state doesn't have the right to strip the people of their Constitutional right. This will forever be argued but the fact of the matter is the handgun laws in Chicago were unconstitutional and they made the right decision when they struck them down.
Reply
Kayla Hensley
10/2/2016 10:10:48 pm
The ultimate ban of handguns in Chicago was unconstitutional, but some other regulations--like background checks or mandatory firearm training--would not be unconstitutional because they would add to the promotion of public safety without violating the second amendment.
Reply
Kayla Hensley
10/2/2016 07:24:34 pm
I agree with the decision of the Supreme Court. The vote was close because it is a matter of how the constitution is interpreted and when you combine the 2nd and 14th ammendments like they did, citizens do have the right to own guns. The handgun ban in Chicago was unconstitutional because it did not allow for equal protection that is guaranteed under the 14th amendment.
Reply
Savannah
10/2/2016 09:23:13 pm
What Chicago was doing is unconsistutional. We all have the right to bare arms. The 2nd amendment states that.
Reply
Barter
10/3/2016 02:45:46 pm
But even Scalia said that regulation was necessary. No one argues that we have a right to carry a bazooka in to a shopping mall. So once regulation is established then the question becomes where to draw the line. Machine guns, bb guns, handguns, nuclear weapons??
Meghan Simons
10/2/2016 09:56:33 pm
The only reason the courts decision was so close was because the 2nd Amendment can be openly interpreted. If it was interpreted that the right to bear arms was only for a militia there would have been a different result.
Reply
Barter
10/3/2016 02:46:58 pm
It's all in the punctuation =) Proving once again that grammar is important.
Savannah
10/2/2016 09:17:43 pm
The ruling of the court's was fair, in the 2nd amendment it stayed that we are allowed to own firearms while the 14th amendment expanded the rights of everyone. I believe the ruling was the for the best, because it is fair and I believe that everyone should have the right to protect themselves.
Reply
Meghan Simons
10/2/2016 09:46:40 pm
The people should have the right to protect themselves and I don't think the government should be able to take that away. Especially since the 14th Amendment gives the people equal protection of the laws which includes the 2nd Amendment.
Reply
Jesus
10/3/2016 12:05:38 am
The court's ruling was fair in that a person's rights should not be taken away depending on where they are in the country. The 14th Amendment expands Constitutional rights, such as those protected under the 2nd Amendment, to everyone in the states.
Reply
Anthony
10/3/2016 07:03:06 am
I agree with the courts decision. The second amendment allows people to bear firearms to protect themselves and this is expanded to everyone within the 14th amendment. So the handgun ban in Chicago was unconstitutional because it took away people's rights to bear arms
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
January 2020
Categories |