Mid term constitutional law 3 - Essay Example

Midterm Constitutional Law 3 Midterm Constitutional Law 3 Question Discuss fully the two main sides of this debate The Second Amendment is one of the constitutional amendments in the Bill of Rights, and it refers to the right that a person has to hold and carry weapons (Bogus, 2000). There have been numerous talks and laws concerning the supervision of obtaining, holding and carrying of weapons, yet there is no clear decision by the legal system on what exact right the Second Amendment protects.

Arguments and discussions on how to define it evoke a lot of feelings because the correct language in the amendment is ambiguously making it difficult accurately to interpret it.Question 2: What are two perspectives as to what the 2nd Amendment protects and what evidence/ arguments do those two sides make to support their stance There are two varied views on the right for a person to hold and carry weapons, those who agree with this right and those against it (Bogus, 2000). Those for this view argue that individuals need guns for their self protection within the confines of their residences and that so long as they keep these weapons dismantled and not functioning, there is no cause for alarm.

Others who love hunting as a sport argue that they need their guns for this purpose reasoning that as long as they are doing it strictly on their property there is no danger posed by the usage of their weapons. Consequently, both these groups of people in favor of this right maintain that owning a weapon is their fundamental freedom right (Halbrook, 1989).On the other hand, those against this view argue that the Second Amendment has no control on criminals and the mentally challenged possessing weapons; neither does it help deter people carrying weapons while entering institutions and buildings or moving around freely with a firearm.

They also maintain that Second Amendment fails to provide provisions that govern weapons being sold. For instance, person may acquire an unlicensed weapon illegally and use it to commit a crime then use the second amendment right as defense alleging that his rights were infringed upon by quoting the Bill of Rights (Halbrook, 1989).Question 3: What stance do you find most convincing and why? The stance I find convincing is the one that is against the possession of weapons despite the reasons for ownership.

For one, this is extremely dangerous especially if the weapon is kept at home, and minors have access to it (Bogus, 2000). Then there is the probability of it going off unexpectedly and injuring an innocent person. There have been several cases in learning institutions where innocent students and teachers have been killed or injured by a student carrying a weapon to school (Halbrook, 1989). Further still, there are no clear provisions that govern the weapons being sold.I believe that rights should also have some limitations to them as a precautionary measure.

As much as one has a right to own a weapon the number of incidences where innocent people have been killed, maimed or injured by trigger happy persons should be put into serious consideration. There are also possibilities that the persons in possession of these weapons can use them to commit criminal acts and go against laid down legislation (Halbrook, 1989). This notwithstanding, the emergence of advanced and complex weapons add a new dimension to this amendment and throw a spanner in the works in terms of ways of controlling the usage of these weapons and this calls for the re-evaluation, review and a clear interpretation of the Second Amendment.

ReferencesBogus, C. (2000). The Second Amendment in law and history: Historians and constitutional scholars on the right to bear arms. New York: New Press.Halbrook, P. (1989). A right to bear arms: State and federal bill of rights and constitutional guarantees. New York: Greenwood Press.