Several District of Columbia residents challenged local firearms laws passed by the Washington, D.C., city council. One of these laws banned handguns in the District of Columbia. Another law required all lawfully owned shotguns or rifles to be kept unloaded and disassembled or else disarmed by a trigger lock.

The residents who challenged the laws want to possess handguns and keep them in their homes for self-defense. One of the residents owns a lawfully registered shotgun but wants to keep it assembled and not bound by a trigger lock. They do not object to the idea of a registration requirement for firearms. Also, they are not seeking to carry any firearms outside their homes. The residents claim that these firearms laws violate their rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Read the language of the Second Amendment on this page. Dothe Washington, D.C., firearms laws violate this Amendment? Explain your reasons.


Answered 2 years ago
Answered 2 years ago
Step 1
1 of 2

The Second Amendment guarantees citizens the right to bear arms and accordingly Washington, D.C. firearms laws violate the Second Amendment.

However, the constitutional right to bear arms does not mean that they are unlimited. On the contrary, there are many laws that promote the safety and security of weapons within the constitutional framework and which as such do not violate the Constitutional right of citizens to bear arms.

Washington, D.C., firearms laws, however, go beyond arms security frameworks and appear to aim to disarm citizens. This makes them unconstitutional.

Create an account to view solutions

Create an account to view solutions

More related questions