In the Supreme Court case “District of Columbia v. Heller” I learned that the District of Columbia added Provisions that required owners of lawfully registered firearms to keep them unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless the firearms were located in place of business or being used for legal recreational activities. This caused Heller (gun owner) to sue the District of Columbia based on the argument that the Provisions violated his Second Amendment. Some opposing arguments stated in support of the respondents are that the Second Amendment only guaranteed the right to people serving in the military and the Constitution did not specify the use of firearms for “self-defense”.
I think that the arguments made by the respondent’s side are very interesting. However, I believe that the Provisions of the District of Columbia made firearms nonfunctional and violated the Second Amendment. In response to the arguments made by the respondents, the Second Amendment that references the term “militia” was not referring to those serving in the military but rather those who are of use in such service. Also, the text of the Amendment should be read how it would during the time it was written which means the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms in case of confrontation.
As I continue to learn about gun control/rights, I want to know more about the question: Does gun regulation decrease gun violence?