(A) Explain why states were not obligated to follow the provisions of the Second Amendment until 2010, even though they
had to follow the provisions of the First Amendment.
(B) In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court decided that Washington, DC, could not prohibit the general
public from owning handguns. Explain why the court's decision did not require states to abide by the provision
(C) Describe under what circumstances a state or locality may prohibit firearm ownership.
ss Read Less

b) The term "militia" referred to all able bodied men. To deny all citizens that right to protect themselves, is unconstitutional and violates the Second Amendment.

c) Citizens with a criminal record will have a much harder chance of getting a firearm.

Explanation:

got 100% on edge :)

Answer Link

topeadeniran2 topeadeniran2 · Answer 2 · 2021-11-06T14:07:17+01:00

States were not obligated to follow the provisions of the Second Amendment until 2010 it would go against the right for citizens to protect their property.

The court's decision did not require states to abide by the provision because it is unconstitutional to deny citizens the right to protect themselves since it violates the Second Amendment.

The circumstance that can lead to a state prohibiting firearm ownership is when the person has a criminal record.

The second amendment protects the rights of an individual to keep and bear arms. It also states that a well-regulated militia is important for the security of the state.

Read related link on:

https://brainly.com/question/6778460