This highly controversial Second Amendment has been viewed as potentially harmful numerous times over the past couple of decades, although the Second Amendment right remains still. According to Stevens (2019), the ruling of the Supreme Court to recognize the right to possess a firearm was “the most clearly incorrect decision.” The author argues that despite the incorrect application of the term “fraud” by Burger, it is necessary to avoid the current interpretation of the Second Amendment and instill stricter gun control (Stevens, 2019). In this paper, I would like to analyze the interpretation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution that led to the decision made by the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller.
The author deems that this interpretation must be accepted in order to provide a stable ground for adequate gun control rights. In his argument, the author relies on the past case that led to the prohibition of highly lethal types of firearms as a basis for his point that it is necessary to expand this restriction (Stevens, 2019). The author judges that The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms to a certain point that is limited by the necessity of doing so depending on the presence of the militia.
In conclusion, I believe that the judge’s interpretation of the Second Amendment was correct, despite a minor overstatement regarding the fraudulent claims of pro-gun voices. The connection to military services is a reasonable prerequisite for handgun possession and lowered restrictions related to other firearms. As the number of victims of mass shootings continues to grow, it is essential for the Supreme Court to establish its position regarding this controversy, as it is highly dangerous for the lives of many Americans.
Reference
Stevens, J. P. (2019). The Supreme Court’s worst decision of my tenure. The Atlantic. Web.