The Supreme Court has only just recently ruled that the Second Amendment
A. establishes only a collective right of the states to have militias
B. does not apply to the states
C. establishes an individual ability to bear arms
D. applies to the states
E. is ambiguous and should be disregarded
1 Answer | Add Yours
The correct answer to this question could be either Option C or Option D. The Supreme Court has made both of these rulings in recent years.
One issue with the Second Amendment has been that it is not clear whether that amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms outside of the context of a militia. The amendment reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It is not clear if the right of the people to keep and bear arms only applies in the case of militias. In 2008, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment means that individuals have the right to bear arms regardless of whether they are in a militia. The name of this case was Heller v. District of Columbia. This implies that Option C is the correct answer.
However, the Court has also recently ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the states and not just to the federal government. The name of this case was McDonald v. City of Chicago. This implies that Option D is correct.
So, either one of these answers could be correct. You could say that Option C is wrong because it uses the term “ability” rather than “right.” So it may be that Option D is the best answer.
We’ve answered 319,647 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question