A high-level overview of the powers of the federal bureaucracy to implement policy.
Log in Naoya Okamoto 5 years agoPosted 5 years ago. Direct link to Naoya Okamoto's post “In the case of _DC v. Hel...” In the case of DC v. Heller, I would have thought that the ruling applied to local governments attempting to place restrictions on the ownership of operative hand guns in the home, but it seems that this ruling only applied to DC. Because DC is a city, why wouldn’t this ruling have applied to other local governments as well? In other words, McDonald v. Chicago extended the right to state and local governments. Before this ruling, what government did this right apply to? The federal government only? • (8 votes) DorkKnight 4 years agoPosted 4 years ago. Direct link to DorkKnight's post “DC's government is techni...” DC's government is technically an executive agency, where Congress has power to overturn laws. Its authority is delegated from Congress so we can consider it as part of the federal government and not belonging to any state or local government. Because of this, the Supreme Court is allowed to involve the 2nd Amendment in their decision, as DC's gov. is a branch of the federal government. As of DC v. Heller, the 2nd Amendment only applied to the federal government. (7 votes) PearlVBowman a year agoPosted a year ago. Direct link to PearlVBowman's post “I am not understanding wh...” I am not understanding what "selective incorporation" means? • (3 votes) Lilly Roepnack 2 months agoPosted 2 months ago. Direct link to Lilly Roepnack's post “_Selective Incorporation_...” Selective Incorporation is the process by which the Bill of Rights is applied to the states. When the Bill of Rights was first enacted, your rights were only gauranteed to be infringed on by the Federal Government. Over time, SCOTUS has applied the Bill of Rights to the states, meaning that now state governments must NOT restrict your liberties in the Bill of Rights. (1 vote) nathan.sease 4 years agoPosted 4 years ago. Direct link to nathan.sease's post “I thought that the ruling...” I thought that the ruling of McDonald v. Chicago was undecided... I didn't really get the official ruling • (3 votes) Lilly Roepnack 2 months agoPosted 2 months ago. Direct link to Lilly Roepnack's post “Scroll down” Scroll down (1 vote) chy 7 months agoPosted 7 months ago. Direct link to chy's post “What does the Second Amen...” What does the Second Amendment protect? • (2 votes) AriellaCabrera07 6 months agoPosted 6 months ago. Direct link to AriellaCabrera07's post “In the 2008 case District...” In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." (1 vote) Edward Nicholas Guerrrero, II 5 years agoPosted 5 years ago. Direct link to Edward Nicholas Guerrrero, II's post “I thought that the ruling...” I thought that the ruling of McDonald v. Chicago was undecided... I didn't really get the official ruling. Can you please fill me in? • (0 votes) Elora Erwin 2 years agoPosted 2 years ago. Direct link to Elora Erwin's post “The Supreme Court ruled i...” The Supreme Court ruled in favor of McDonald, saying the 2nd amendment applied to the state level and citizens had the right to bear arms. (1 vote) Moby Duck Killer 3 years agoPosted 3 years ago. Direct link to Moby Duck Killer's post “In your opinion, is the S...” In your opinion, is the Second amendment a good thing or a bad thing? • (0 votes) Stran1939 2 years agoPosted 2 years ago. Direct link to Stran1939's post “In my opinion, it is a go...” In my opinion, it is a good thing. (0 votes)Want to join the conversation?
Abundant historical evidence indicates that the Second Amendment was meant to leave citizens with the ability to defend themselves against unlawful violence. Such threats might come from usurpers of governmental power, but they might also come from criminals whom the government is unwilling or unable to control.
Without the Second Amendment, states and the federal government would be able to regulate the manufacturing, sale, and use of fire arms any way they like. The government could even go as far as strictly prohibiting anyone from owning or using firearms. There is actually some debate about what the Second Amendment means.
I hope this helps!
