Should individuals have a private right to own guns even when they are not in the militia? Does the District of Columbia’s handgun law violate the Second Amendment?

Individuals SHOULD NOT OWN PRIVATE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS IF THEY DON’T BELONG TO THE MILITIA. Gun control is difficult to be regulated. Letting citizens who don’t belong to the militia to own guns will often put the public in constant fear. Heller, even as a special police, wasn’t part of the militia. His training doesn’t necessarily guarantee his proper use of guns. Thus, the D.C. law didn’t violate the Second Amendment. As we view the precedent of the United States v.s Miller case back in 1939, it showed that the Supreme Court ruled the right to bear and keep arms only to a well-regulated militia. Other cases in the past also ended up with having the Supreme Court ruling in favor of gun rights being connected to a militia. This shows a consistency in the Supreme Court’s decision of ruling in favor of the militia’s right to own guns. Going back to the origin of gun rights, the Second Amendment stated, “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.” The framers’ intention of this amendment was to allow the militia, who were the main force of protection of the country, to own guns in order to protect the country. While Heller stated his need of guns for self-defense, the term “self-defense” was never explicitly stated in the Second Amendment, thus doesn’t justify Heller’s right to own guns. Last but not least, judging from contemporary social values and needs, the need of guns isn’t really justified. The maintenance of militia isn’t even necessary today since the U.S. already has a well-trained military that serves as the protection force of the country. If guns were regulated and restricted for private use, then the use of self-defense isn’t really imperative.