Background
A group of citizens in Washington D.C. banded together to fight a law passed that made it mandatory for all guns to be kept unloaded and disassembled. They felt that the gun, being disassembled, would not serve its' purpose of protection.
Issues
Is it constitutional to pass a law mandating all guns in the home must be unloaded and disassembled?
Decision
In a 5-4 decision the high court ruled that the law was unconstitutional and the state cannot ban handguns altogether and that forcing the guns to be disassembled makes the gun useless in an emergency.
Majority- Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
Dissent- Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg Breyer
Opinion
I agree with the majority opinion in this case. According to U.S. v. Miller, the defendants were not allowed to posses the sawed-off shotgun because at that time, a sawed-off shotgun did not contribute to "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." However, a handgun does contribute to a well regulated militia due to it being the very basic firearm. So according to U.s. V. Heller, they should be able to possess handguns.
I agree with your decision that you chose the majority. The individual's should have the right to possess handguns since it is a very basic firearm and is pretty much used solely for the protection of oneself in their home.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and the majority because people do have their right to protect themselves with a handgun. A handgun is a basic firearm and supports a well regulated militia. All of these rights were protected in U.S v. Heller.
ReplyDelete