User:Keimzelle/Second Amendment

Brief synopsis of de:Second Amendment

The purpose of this article is that you can suggest me important changes to the German article about the Second Amendment.

please sign your contributions to this page.
thank you, Keimzelle

modifications suggested on the discussion page. Wodan 18:27, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

the second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms
- it is highly disputed in its interpretation
- democrats tend to prohibit guns, while republicans are for liberal gun laws

the second amendment only prohibits the u.s. government from enacting arms-controlling laws
local and state authorities are free to prohibit or regulate arms possession
- Suggestion: holding the bill of rights to only restrict the federal government is the "old" interpretation. under the 14th amendment, the states are held to many of the same restrictions. No court has yet decided whether the 14th incorporates the 2nd. -O^O

a well regulated militia: the militia are the precedessors of today's national guards, and until 1903 the militia were the main fighting forces of the US. proponents of gun laws say that only militia have the right to keep and arm bears. in this sense today's police and army have to be seen as successors to the militia because they are organized in the same fashion as the then-times militia.

- Suggestion: Saying that the militia is today the national guard is an argument used by opponents of gun rights. It is an opinion, not a fact. United States law says the militia is all males between 17 and 45. -O^O

but the "people" are given the right to k&b a. pro-gunners tend to oversee that militia and people meant the same in the context of 1791, and the founders of the US didn't see it necessary to make a difference in the bill of rights

arms: only flint-lock muskets, one-shot pistols, swords and cannons are protected by the 2nd amendment because they were the only arms which existed by 1791. in a verbatim interpretation of the amendment, the people would have been given rights to possess poison gas, nuclear weapons and grenade launchers.
- problem: in this sense, the 1st amendment would only protect free speech as long as it uses book printing and horse carriages, but not internet and tv

historical context, following u.s. v. miller (1939): arms were in the possession of the individual militia members, and a loss of the personal weapon meant his exclusion from the militia. because the militia were the armies of the US at this time, the 2nd amendment guaranteed only one thing, namely that nobody could disarm the militia and thus make the US vulnerable to attack.

u.s. v. cruikshank: 2nd amendment applies only to federal legislation, and the right to keep and arm bears must not be enforced by individuals or the states

presser v. illinois: disarmament of the militia would make the US vulnerable, and to make the individual able to fulfil his militia duty to the US, he has the right to own a personal weapon

u.s. v. miller: only militia-type weapons are protected by the 2nd amendment, and only militia members are entitled to 2nd amendment protection. furthermore, only weapons which are appropriate for the "general defense" are protected
- Suggestion: this is a poor summary of the Miller case. A better summary is "only weapons suitable for militia duty are protected. Miller had a short-barreled shotgun. Short-barreled shotguns were found to not be suitable for militia duty, and could therefore be banned".-O^O

today's official position of the secretary of justice: quote from ashcroft brief