Dc. V Heller, And The Second Ammendment. Help Me Fight Liberal Bias Plauging My Term Paper!!!!

(Vanity) | Rachel T.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

WE WOULD ALL LIKE TO READ THE FRUITS OF YOUR EFFORTS>

[TheatricalOne]

i just finished my essay, at 1:00 in the morning. The essay requirements were as follows : write a memo as if you were a member of the supreme court on the case of D.C v Heller. Note to freepers, half of my better arguments were quashed by my teacher so alas i could not use everything i wanted to use. Second i needed to attack this from both a strict and loose constructionist stand point. Finally this is due Monday so if you have any extreme issues or it just stinks then feel free to post. Case Memo The Constitutional question of the people’s right to bear arms as it pertains to the District of Colombia, cannot and should not be infringed upon by the national government, who has no jurisdiction, seeing as only states can regulate guns . The enforcement of the second amendment falls strictly under the state government’s responsibilities. The second amendment protects the people’s rights to self defense, as well as self preservation. This can be clearly seen in its construction as well as penumbras that exist in both the second and ninth amendments. If the court were to rule in favor of this gun ban the there would be a drastic and malignant infringement of rights placed unto the people of the district and in time every American. The citizenry which is allowed to overthrow a corrupt government would be powerless to a tyrannical government lacking comparable weapons needed to relinquish trusted power.
Though the second amendment was never incorporated to the states it still pertains to the District of Colombia because it is run by the national government. D.C is regulated by the national government who make the laws, however the national government has no real way of justifying a infringement on a right to regulate that only the states under the tenth amendment have. The issue of guns falls solely under the tenth amendment because states are required to protect the health and welfare of the citizenry.
The Second Amendment is straight forward. The framers posed many questions in regards to the issue of gun ownership and the people . They framers had to create a document that allowed the people to have guns but to also prevent the people from turning on the fragile and potentially controversial new government; however it was their overall intention to allot the people the right to bear arms . This is best established by the proposed second amendments that were never ratified. The Massachusetts plan would have made clear their intention to allow the people to own guns. It would have reads as follows: “The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defense. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature: and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it” . This plan if it had been ratified would have allowed the citizens to own guns and would have disabled a professional military. This also would have affirmed the idea that states should decide on gun rights. In the instance of our current amendment there is both a literal assumption of the people’s rights to bear arms, as well as a penumbra. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people should not be infringed.” To translate this into today’s connotations would be to connote the term “militia” as meaning the collective right of the people, as reaffirmed by English analysis, Roy Copperud a retired professor of journalism . The right of the people to bear arms is indicated by the verbiage as well as a penumbra that is assumed under the second, the people’s rights is stated as well as understood. As well as having a right to own guns as spelled out in the second amendment there is also penumbras that allow the people to own guns within the rest of the document .
The 9th amendment reserves powers to the people. This amendment has a visible penumbra that allows for the individual to own a fire arm, because where does it say that one cannot own hand guns which were in existence of the time of the framers. And, the 10th amendment allows states to protect the health and welfare of the people hence making the issue of gun owner ship a matter left to the states to determine. D.C is not a state governed territory; it is governed by the national government and therefore has no right to meddle in states matters. The right to bear arms falls under the pretense of states monitoring he protection of personal well being, weather being for protection or sports such as hunting . By allowing D.C to ban hand guns it is violating D.C residents (who are American) rights to have weapons comparable to those of the police to protect themselves and overthrow a corrupt government.
In this circumstance the D.C ban on hand guns does not hold water. D.C a national territory has not standing to make a concrete ban on guns because D.C is controlled solely by the national government. The banning of guns is an intentional act by congress to directly further their power over the states by using precedents in D.C as an example. Congress has been trying for years to ban guns in any way shape and form and this court has ruled it unconstitutional (as in the case of US V Lopez). By allowing D.C to ban guns then it would set a dangerous precedent that would eventually lead to the banning of guns on a national front, which would deprive Americans of their constitutional rights. If another state were to bring a suit regarding guns to our courts and we ruled on the precedents set here and now, then we would have successfully helped in the battle to bolster the power of the national government and suppress the people’s rights to self defense though the full faith and credit clause.
To allow D.C to ban guns would open the floodgates to allowing both territories and states to question the validity of an amendment, thus in time potentially lessening the documents legitimacy. So in conclusion I urge my fellow court members to protect the people of D.C and of everyone else in America. To disregard the wording of the second amendment, coupled with the well documented motives of the framers would be an over reach of the courts powers. Therefore I encourage you all in making your decision to side with the people whose rights are being infringed. Let us not begin a dangerous practice of choosing which amendments we should follow and which we should deem out dated or too vague, because at that rate we are to disregard the bulk of the document itself.

[TheatricalOne]

Wordy Im aware. P.s please for give me for my poor grammar its late and im tired.