Court Cases

McDonald vs Chicago: Many lawsuits were filed against Chicago and Oak Park after they challenged the courts ruling that the court stated after the Heller vs District of Columbia case. They appealed that it was unconstitutional that the District of Columbia was banning guns in the area. The court then ruled that it was unconstitutional for the ban of guns in the District if Columbia.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_1521

District of Columbia vs Heller: The District of Columbia passed a law banning the purchase of handguns and that all owned legal firearms must be kept unloaded. The District of Columbia appealed that this was unconstitutional and that the 2nd amendment only applied to militia not private gun ownership. After a 5-4 decision the court ruled that the 2nd amendment does not apply to private ownership of handguns and only to militia. It then ruled that it is legal to own a handgun for the purpose of only using it for protection of the self and an individual's home.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290

Current Interpretation

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

This is the Vermont law about an individual's right to bear arms. This law mainly addresses that people have the right to bear arms for self defense and for statewide defense. It also states that the civil power can make restrictions and decisions involving the militia and their arms. It states that the military should be under strict control when it comes to the arms they are allowed to posses and when they can posses them.


http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

Constitutional Connection

2nd 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.

An individual's right to bear arms is directly related to the 2nd Amendment. This is the only Amendment in the constitution that addresses the right to own a gun. As you may be able to tell the text above from the constitution is the extremely vague 2nd amendment. It's also slightly confusing. It then goes on to state that the government has the right to regulate who can obtain a gun. In my view that's stating two pretty different things. Both parts of the amendment contradict and that is not a good thing because that causes confusion and leaves murky water. The amendment is surely not black and white like it really should be.


Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Issue Explanation

The Issue around the second amendment is that the way the Second Amendment is stated in the constitution is extremely vague. The government is making restrictions on who can buy guns, and how easily an individual can get a gun. the Issu centered around these restrictions, and which ones are "constitutional" and which ones are "unconstitutional".

Initial Thoughts

The issue around the right to bear arms is, limits are wanted on the right an individual has to bear arms. Some feel that it is unconstitutional to have these limits because the Second Amendment clearly states that an individual has a right to bear and keep arms, and it shall not be infringed upon. Some feel that we are infringing upon our right to do this by making laws preventing certain people from owning a gun.

Questions
Is it really infringing on an individual's rights to the second amendment if we make a law saying that someone with a severe enough disability can't own a gun? I don't believe it is wrong to make a law like that.