Sample Law Essay
The two main sides to this debate arise from the differences in interpretation about how the law should be applied based on the second part of the law. The first side is that the amendment protects individual’s rights to own firearms while the second side is interpreted to mean the protection of collective people’s rights to bear arms in relation to militia service (Charles 2). Proponents of the latter are often referred to as individual rights theorists while proponents of the former are referred to as collective rights theorists. The individual right theorists base their arguments on the fact that ‘people’ should be used to refer to an individual’s right to keep and bear firearms (Charles 2). For the collective theorists, they base their argument that there is a correlation between the right to ‘keep and bear firearms’ and the militia service only (Charles 2).
ORDER LAW ESSAY NOW
From a deeper perspective, by looking at this law,
it would be arguable to state that the law was designed to protect the militia
service and that the law does not include the protection of any civil citizen.
Therefore, this law was designed to ensure that the right of an individual to
‘keep and bear arms’ in defense of his country, in a militia or in a military
force and in defense of their liberties is what the law was meant for (Charles
2). It would also be important to note that it is a limited right that
pre-existed the Constitution, and thus, any interpretation outside the original
intention is using the law out of context and a violation of the actual
intentions of the law. As a result of these differences, the most convincing side
would be the argument that the law was only designed for use within the context
of the militia, as argued by the collective right theorists.
Charles, Patrick J. The Second Amendment: The Intent and Its Interpretation by the States and the Supreme Court. McFarland & Co., 2009.
Use the following coupon code :