Surname 1 Name of student Name of tutor Course Date District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) One of the most complicated and unresolved issues that have face United States for many years is the legality of firearms. One incidence that shows the complexity of the situation of owning a handgun is in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. It all started when Miller, a police officer who wanted a license to keep a handgun at home but it was denied. After the presentation of the case to the local court, the case was dismissed. However, the case was forwarded to the supreme court of United States which judged the court in favor of Miller and ended up overturning the rules of Washington DC. The issue of firearms has been in the history of United States (Anderson, 547). While there are people who support the legality of owning a firearm, there are also many Americans that fell like there should be restricted. However, despite many people opposing the laws of having a firearm and the many injuries and death associated with guns, the second amendment has never changed the right to own gun law. The essay’s main idea is to show why the right to own a gun has never been changed in the case of case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). The first part of the court ruling was based on the second amendment that specifically says that a person has a right to have a gun whether they are militia or they are normal individuals. However, according to the constitution, they were only allowed ...
Purchase document to see full attachment