With would now become the biggest obstacleWith would now become the biggest obstacle

With many of the recent tragic incidents that have involved guns within the last 30 years, gun control laws have become a very hot topic of debate in America another side who believes that with a rigorous system in place like this, it definitely violates the individual rights that is given and protected by the United States Constitution the first place . The District of Columbia v. Heller plays an important role in shaping our right to keep and bear arms for self-defense by being the first court case that defines who can own guns for self-defense. In 2008, the landmark case, District of Columbia v firearms, like shotguns and rifles, be registered with the city his hand gun during his duty, but he cannot register for a license to keep a handgun at home for technical reasons, the DMoving on to the Supreme Court would now become the biggest obstacle for each side of the debate. One major debate came down to the question: Don’t the words “the right of the people” pro-gun control community recognized that it cannot win the battle if using those terms. A right “of the people” cannot mean a right “of the states of militia-related weapons”. The extended oral argument went on as is. Washington D.C. of it in a certain situation also as a right protected in the Second Amendment, dating all the back to the English Bill of RightsThe main argument that helped Heller become victorious in his case was the Second Amendment of the U. of the government. After carefully looking at the Second Amendment, the court comes to the decision that the Amendment extent to the people without military background. To come to this decision, the court is looking at the reference of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” instead of the original intent. To the court, the reference of “the right of the people” individual rights to obtain and carry firearms without linking it to the military background (Carter 235).Then protects a collective right of states to maintain militias or an individual right to keep and bear arms in connection with service in a militia being necessary to the security of a free State,” of sawed-off shotguns did not violate the Second Amendment because such weapons did not have a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.”) Finally, the court held that, because the framers understood the right of self-defense to be “the central component” of the right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment implicitly protects the right “to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”In his dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens asserted that the court’s decision After studying the facts and reading the final decision, I believe the final decision of the District of Columbia v Based off D.C.’s argument about the trigger-lock and self defense can almost be a laughable statement. As a licensed gun-owner myself, I use trigger-locks as well as putting my rifles on safety, so no one can accidentally injure themselves in my home. D.C. argued that it takes about 3 seconds to take off a trigger-lock and still the trigger-lock. Those 10 seconds could be of that will matter if you are one of the thousands of American gun owners who uses a firearm in self-defense against a criminal or intruder each year to commit crimes increases a long way in preventing the rise of crime rate in the countryBased on the case of Heller, a new law that limits a person from acquiring firearms could other than a handgun allow to The Supreme Court has an enormous amount of discretion when deciding cases that effect the entire population within the United States through judicial restraint used