The Castle Doctrine is a law that gives citizens the right to protect their homes and other property by any means necessary---often resulting in the use of deadly force. The Castle Doctrine is different in all the states and is not federally mandated, which is one of the biggest issues with the law. Governor of Ohio:
Strickland called the bill “common-sense legislation”, Strickland also stressed that it will also clear up ambiguous sections of Ohio's concealed-carry law “What we've clarified in this bill I think will go a long way toward providing both law enforcement as well as law-abiding citizens some confidence that what they're doing is, in fact, consistent with the law,” he said. (cbaus.)
I do not think that the Castle Doctrine can possibly clear up Ohio’s already convoluted concealed-carry laws for firearms because the Castle Doctrine states that you can react with deadly force to protect yourself from people trying to hurt you but the law does not put any real limitations on your ability to act aggressively when someone is threatening you. However threatening behavior is never really definable because everyone feels threatened by different things, a joke to one person is a threat to somebody else.
The Castle Doctrine allows you to defend yourself or your family from criminals but, where does that stop and the line between killing someone and claiming self-defense begin. There is no boundary that is clearly defined by law, so those people that are taking advantage of the Castle Doctrine often get away with it. I think that people being able to protect themselves is a good idea because the cops don’t always make it on time or at all but I think that there should be much more limits on this law and that it should be federally mandated and the law should be the same nationwide. I think that the people who have claimed the Castle Doctrine should be investigated thoroughly and if it comes out that they were the aggressor then I don’t think they should be allowed to claim it. The Castle Doctrine really does need to be revised and made so that there are no loopholes and the fact that it is different from state to state just helps people get away with killing somebody else. I don’t think that any law that is made with the intention of letting people get off free with murdering somebody else should exist without the time and attention paid to it that taking somebody else’s life deserves.
James Madison once said,” All men having power ought to be distrusted.” Through these words, Madison made the statement that not all government officials use their authority for good; some abuse that power and use it to gain more for themselves rather than vesting it within the people. This issue may lead to tyranny. Tyranny is when all powers belong to only one person or group. In May of 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia to draft a better constitution. One of the topics that concerned many was how the constitution would guard against tyranny. Madison and the other delegates wanted a Constitution that would be strong enough to unite the states and the people together without letting there be one person or group gain too much power. They achieved this in several ways. Today, the U.S. Constitution guards against tyranny by including a separation of powers, federalism, and the fair representation of states.
What Are Your Rights Worth? George Edward Peele III King &Low Heywood Thomas School. National security has been greatly enhanced by the passage of the Patriot Act. The USA PATRIOT Act is an act of Congress that was signed by President Bush in 2001. The title of the act is a ten-letter acronym that stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.
The Patriot Act has been under scrutiny and opposition since its creation following 9/11. When 9/11 struck it was clear that Americas intelligence was lacking in some specific way, but it was translated that America needed greater allowance for gathering information. The Patriot Act was signed on October 26, 2001, very close to 9/11. It can be concluded that the Patriot Act was signed with such extreme ability’s applied, because of how close it was signed after 9/11. The Act Greatly expands the liberty’s if law enforcement in their efforts to gather information, which in turn imposes on the privacy of the American people. The FBI has the ability to study any citizen suspected of terrorism, and has access to all their information. Wire Taps and other invasive action are allowed and granted by the Patriot Act. Was the Patriot Act signed to quickly? Are its measures to extreme? When is the line drawn on how much power the government can have? Is the Patriot Act effective enough that it is necessary? Should we as Americans willing to trade freedom for safety? Can the Patriot Act effectively stop or hinder terrorist attacks; has its stopped enough attacks to be validated? Another question is does America want a government that has that much power, how much are we as Americans willing to sacrifice, and how much more liberty’s is the government going take. If the government can pass the patriot act, what other legislation can they pass? In reality it all comes down to the American people, we are democracy but do we have the power in are hands? When finding all these questions one asks do we need an act that is in fact this controversial? Is the Patriot Act a necessary evil? To find this answer we have to answer all the questio...
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” This quote from Benjamin Franklin illustrates how an emphasis on safety can drastically reduce the freedoms enjoyed by citizens of the United States, especially the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states that “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” However, with active shooter situations such as Columbine; the Tucson, Arizona shootings, which nearly killed former Representative Gabrielle Giffords; and recent situations at Newtown, Connecticut; Los Angeles International Airport; and Westfield Garden State Plaza mall in New Jersey, the federal government has questioned this right guaranteed to us as U.S. Citizens. In Congress, it is a back-and-forth battle between the Republicans, who favor less gun control legislation and a literal translation of the Second Amendment, and the Democrats who would like to see more gun control legislation to protect the safety of citizens. However, more gun control legislation would punish law-abiding citizens, be a direct violation of the Second Amendment, and expand the power of the federal government into areas where the Founding Fathers never wanted it.
Another standard set forth states that a court may assume that a provision may burden Second Amendment right to conceal carry, without determining whether it extends past the home, and then apply the appropriate level of scrutiny to determine the provisions constitutionality. The Fourth and Second circuit courts both follow this standard. We can first examine the Woollard case. In Woollard, the court determined whether Maryland’s “good and substantial reason” violated an individual’s right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. Id. at 879. The Woollard court adopted the use of a two-part approach developed under Heller court. Id. at 872. Under this test, the court elected to merely assume that the right to bear arms does extend outside
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." Thomas Jefferson said this quote almost 200 years ago and to this day it still applies. The right to bear arms was such a priority to the founding fathers of this country that it received the second spot on the list of the basic rights of all Americans. This right is in the process of being restricted in order to supposedly reduce crime and homicide. These gun control laws should not be permitted because they restrict law-abiding citizens’ access to firearms, leave people defenseless when a crime does arise, and have been proven futile in other countries.
Mr. Logan, I strongly agree with your findings. The Brady Doctrine plays an important role in the criminal justice system as a whole. It allows innocent people not to be convicted due to the negligence of prosecutors or law enforcement agencies. The Brady Doctrine requires prosecutors to disclose materially exculpatory evidence that is in the possession of the government to the defendant. This verifies the credibility of law enforcement agencies' testimony when used as a witness.
Most of the gun control bills that have been passed have the same meaning. The difference is its worded differently. People and government officials word it differently so if for some reason one of the bills wouldn’t be passed they make another bill rewording different but having the same meaning to try and trick the governor and other government officials who could pass the bill. So far its been working, as for the rest of the bills passed: needing a background check to purchase ammunition as well for online ammunition, needing to report a missing firearm within 5 days or the individual will be considered criminalized, banning all firearms that have bullet buttons, banning any “grandfathered” magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, all these bills can be found on scpr.org. These are all bills that have been passed in 2016, not to mention all bills were passed in one day. Some of these bills have been dealt with before: “grandfather” magazines. Prior to the ban in 2001 any 30 round magazines owned before that year could be kept and used. Now the committee is trying to go back and try to ban those magazines that had apparently been dealt with. If this bill is passed the magazines that are legal to obtain if purchase before 2001 will have to be destroyed, sold to an FFL (Federal Firearm License) dealership, or taken out of
If a person don’t carry a concealed weapon, how will they be able to protect themselves and their precious family from vicious criminals? Shall issue states are states that citizens may apply and be considered by the state for a gun permit which is also known as concealed carry. John R. Lott, is an economist and has received his Ph.D. in economics from UCLA. He claimed "shall-issue" concealed carry laws reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robbery by 3%, according to a 2000 analysis of FBI crime data” (Lott, John R.) This refers to how concealed carry reduces crime and information was reported by the FBI compared to the other states that don’t allow concealed carry. This quote shows real evidence on how guns
The 2nd amendment “The Right to Bear Arms” has not been brought up to date in over 200 hundred years and it is time that we make the necessary adjustments. Handguns and assault weapons are to blame for many mass killings in America. Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Handguns and semi automatic weapons have been used in these massacres. The choice of rules such as exercising the right to further background checks and limit the availability of automatic weapons should be the first and foremost concern of both federal and state legislators.
...o militias, and dismissed his lawsuit. Heller perused his lawsuit; the matter was appealed and sent to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Court of Appeals reversed the lowers court decision based on reasons the Second Amendment clearly mentions an individual may bear arms while serving in the militia, and the same individual has a right protect himself and his family as sacrosanct. The court concludes that the city’s ban on handguns and its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional violated that right. In other words, an individual need not be in a militia to own a firearm, it is an individual’s right to own a firearm in self -defense. Heller concluded his defense by saying, “self-defense is a basic right recognized by ancient legal system to present, and it is the central component of the Second Amendment”
“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.” - Second Amendment. Throughout history, this sentence of twenty seven words has caused an intense debate. The polemic is that some people claim that a gun control policy is unconstitutional, while others disagree and even say it is necessary in order to reduce crime. Now, what does gun control mean? If it means to analyze who is responsible enough to own a gun by a “Universal Background Check”; that sounds right to everyone. But in the article “What Are Obama’s Gun Control Proposals? An Easy Guide” published in the National Journal by Matt Vasilogambros. The author states that the “gun-control package” that President Obama proposed “included proposals to ban assault weapons”. A firearm gives you power, to defend yourself or to kill someone else. You make the decision of how will you use that power. The constitution gives you the right to bear arms and any law that tries to revoke this is unconstitutional. If the people allow gun control it will be like opening the door to a tyrannical government, guns are not the problem, is the bad attention towards education, poverty and job opportunities.
When the United States Constitution adopted the Second Amendment as a part of the Bill of Rights it was to recognize citizens the right to keep and bear arms. This Second Amendment is the reason why strong gun advocates are afraid to have any gun policy put in this state. The people that have their guns believe that the government is going to be corrupted and the people have to overturn it. But, they live in a fairytale if they really thinking that they are going to beat a army like the United States. They are afraid that the local government will take away their guns. This policy that I will explain to you won't do none of these options, but instead help the state lower the crime rates that involve guns and keep law enforcement well know to people that have guns in their possession. We are trying to go after the illegal owners of firearms instead to outstanding citizen that owns gun trying to protect his family from an home invasion, protecting his herd from wolves so the farmer won't lose more money , or just having a good time hunting with his friends and family.
The law commission makes it clear there is an issue with the fact that there is not a definition of the word ‘lethal’, the point is also made that it is due to this there is an overreliance on expert witnesses to determine the lethality of a firearm thus leading to longer and more expensive trials. Furthermore, for the purposes of this legislation (Firearms Act 1968) it is unclear whether low power air rifles or poorly modified imitation firearms which cause reduced harm can come under the banner of lethal. This is further complicated by section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968 which gives provisions on those who have served a sentence by the courts and places restrictions on their rights to possess a firearm, the issue here is whether one who has
During the problem definition stage, one must realize that “a condition is not a social problem unless it is seen as violating certain fundamental values and beliefs about how society should operate” (Gusfield, 2011). I have determined that there exists a problem concerning gun control, more specifically, concealed carry laws, as they are inconsistent throughout the states. While 48 states now have some form of concealed carry policy in place, the Illinois does not. Thus, the citizens’ rights are in violation of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.