The Right to Keep and Bear Arms by Quilici vs. Morton Grove - Essay Example

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms by Quilici vs. Morton Grove The Second Amendment to the United s Constitution is as follows: "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." How this amendment was interpreted and understood was crucial in the case.The Quilici vs. Morton Grove case arose from Ordinance 81-11, passed in 1981 by the Village of Morton Grove in Illinois, which prohibited the possession of handguns within the Village.

Victor D. Quilici claimed the ordinance violated the second amendment of the U. S. Constitution and wanted the ordinance declared unconstitutional.Morton Grove's main argument is based on evidence1 which showed that prohibiting the possession of handguns within the Village will help make the community safer by reducing the number of deaths and accidents caused by handguns. In addition, Morton Grove claimed it had the right to resort to police power to guarantee peace and safety in the community, and that by passing Ordinance 81-11, the village is not violating any of the rights guaranteed by the Illinois Constitution2The court took the side of Morton Grove and dismissed the case, arguing that it had the right to regulate the ownership and possession of guns and that the Ordinance did not violate the second amendment and the Illinois constitution (Quilici v.

Morton Grove II para. 4 and III para. 5).The right to possess firearms is an emotional issue that continues to be argued in courts all over the country. The reason is that this issue reaches into concerns that are very human: the defense, protection, and preservation of life, and our search for security.People who push for the right to own guns may have valid reasons to believe that way. Perhaps, their lives have been threatened in the past. Or perhaps, the peace and order in their community has deteriorated to such an extent that danger is like a cloak that darkens their everyday lives, and they think that possessing handguns is one way to get back the sense of security and comfort they have lost.

Whatever their reasons, I believe the arguments used by Morton Grove in passing Ordinance 81-11 are valid. A community is safer if firearms are banned altogether. Owning firearms give you a sense of security, in case someone threatens your life. But at the same time, this sense of security may be false since it is based on a feeling of power and domination that you have an advantage over another person, and this power is something hard to control and, therefore, can be abused.Another issue to be considered is how real the threat to life is.

Most of our communities are safe. The people around us are decent and peace-loving. Laws are followed and people educated enough to know how to resolve problems and conflicts in a free, democratic, and human way. Owning a gun gives you an alternative to resolving arguments, and knowing that such a violent alternative exists adds to insecurity. Violence results in a vicious downward spiral as violence begets more violence, escalating into a feeling of greater insecurity. We only have to look at what is happening in many other parts of the world to realize that this is true.

Guns are not the solution to the absence of peace.If we approach our problems with a peaceful mind, we can be sure that we will arrive at peaceful solutions. The way of peace begins at home, and there is no greater threat to that peace than having an instrument of violence inside your home.Works Cited:Quilici v. Village of Morton Grovr, 695 F. 2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982). 2 Nov. 2005 Footnotes: