More handpicked essays just for you.
Gun control and the 2nd amendment debate
Second amendment and its impact on the issue of gun ownership
Gun control and the 2nd amendment debate
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Gun control and the 2nd amendment debate
In 2008, the Supreme Court case Heller v. District of Columbia ruled that Washington D.C gun law violated the Second Amendment. The reason why it violated individuals Second Amendment was because the law banned the possession of handguns. The Heller v. District of Columbia case brief is what led to McDonald v. Chicago. Otis McDonald is a resident of Chicago; he lived in his neighborhood for many years. But after the increase in crime, he felt the need to own a handgun despite of him already legally owning rifles and shotguns. He believed owing a handgun would be more useful when it comes down to him trying to protect himself. Yet, the City of Chicago has a requirement that requires all handguns to be registered with the city in order for the
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
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.
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
Many people today argue that McCulloch v. Maryland is one of the most important Supreme Court cases in United States history. Three main points were made by Chief Justice Marshall in this case, and all of these points have become critical and necessary parts of the U.S. Government and how it functions. The first part of the Supreme Court’s ruling stated that Congress has implied powers under a specific part of the Constitution referred to as the Necessary and Proper Clause. The second section of the ruling determined that the laws of the United States are more significant and powerful than any state laws that conflict with them. The last element addressed by Chief Justice Marshall was that sovereignty of the Union lies with the people of the
Lynch vs. Clarke (1844) was the most important case before the passage of the Fourteenth amendment dealing with this matter. It involved the discussion of whether Julia Lynch was a citizen or not. The nature of this case meant that she must either have been born a natural born citizen because she was born to her parents, that although were aliens, on U.S. soil, or that she was not a citizen at all because her parents were aliens regardless of the place of her birth that she had never made any attempt to be naturalized. The court ruled in her favor. The ruling established that under the common law of England, Julia Lunch would be considered a natural born citizen of the U.S., the common law of England formed the basis
Chicago. The National Rifle Association, otherwise referred to as the NRA, was especially momentous when it came to their involvement in the case. The NRA, a political lobby in support of gun rights, was included in the petitioners of McDonald v. Chicago, having sued the city for its handgun laws (Nieto, 2011, p. 1119). On the other end of the spectrum were several organizations in support of the Chicago gun laws. This included the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, a 501(c)(3) organization that advocates for the for the reduction of gun violence through research, submitting its opinion on the McDonald v. Chicago case to the Supreme Court, helping shape the opinions of the dissenting justices (Horwitz & Schreiber, 2010). These groups, along with countless others, offered legal and monetary support to both the petitioners and respondents of McDonald v.
United States is a country that has problems with gun control, and this issue has many debates between whether or not people should be allowed to carry a gun on them. This free county not only for speech and religion, but also allows people to have the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment of the United States was written by our Founding Fathers,“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” (Government). The main purpose of the Second Amendment when our Founding Fathers wrote this amendment was to help the American citizens to defend themselves from the government at that time, and other countries from invading their properties. However, the Second Amendment could be the opposite of what our Founding Fathers wanted it to be in the twenty-first century, because many criminals are taking advantage of the right to carry guns, which in example results with the purpose of showing off with their friends, revenge for their gang’s members, or try to be like their favorite hero in the movie they had watched. On July 20, 2012, a massive shooting occurred inside of a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. The tragedy happened during a midnight screening of the film The Dark Knight Rises which killed twelve people and injuring seventy others. In response, this alarmed our government to rethink about the current gun control law in America. In A Well Regulated Militia by Saul Cornell, the author informed to his audience the different views of gun ownership in early America, which part was the most important part of the debate, how did slavery affect the debate over militias in the South, the Continental army officer’s views, and the arguments be...
By: Kristen Rand Summary / Analysis : This article discusses the amendment to gun control, specifically the right to bear arms. But it isn’t discussing it on the U.S. mainland, but instead on the District of Columbia. The controversy is whether or not the District is bound to the same laws and amendments that the rest of the United States is. The current law in Columbia is that there is a universal ban on guns. So should the U.S. Supreme Court vote to allow citizens to bear arms, or should the 30-year-old ban be erased?
The national government was still too weak and the states were unrestrained. It is believed that it would have been more important to limit the states than the federal government. The first attempt to limit the states came with the Fourteenth Amendment and sought to ensure that the slaves freed under the Thirteenth Amendment would not be denied full protection of the law. Despite the clarity of the Fourteenth Amendment of 1868, it was not until 1925 that the Supreme Court actually applied the Fourteenth Amendment to the states in the case of Gitlow v. New York, when it ruled with the state of New York against Gitlow who was advocating for the overthrow of the government. This process of selective incorporation is not smooth and continues to progress in surges with the most recent ruling in 2010 in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, which incorporated the Second Amendment by striking down a gun control ordinance in Chicago, while reaffirming the ownership restrictions adopted in 2008. The Third, Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments remain
Heller,” the United States Supreme Court revealed what the Second Amendment is really about. In June 2008, a S.W.A.T. officer with the Washington, D.C., Police Department sued in the District of Columbia District Court for the right to carry a handgun while off duty. The Supreme Court ruled that he had the right to carry a weapon for a lawful purpose, and the District Court's opinion was reversed from the decision in 1939 when the Second Amendment was last interpreted. It also ruled that two District of Columbia laws, one that banned handguns and the other one that required firearms kept in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violated the Second Amendment
District of Columbia v Heller took place in 2008, addressing the issue of a District of Columbia gun control law. This law stated that it was illegal to have an unregistered firearm while also prohibiting the registration of handguns. Although the Chief of Police was able to grant one-year licenses, these provisions made it illegal to have a handgun not registered before the law took effect, and the handguns were required to be re-license annually. Another provision required that the licensed handgun was inoperable for storage, meaning the gun had to be unloaded and disassembled or had to have a trigger
With many recent incidents that involve guns between 2012 and 2013, gun control laws have become a hot topic in America. On one hand, after the horrific incident like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting at Newtown in 2012, most people wanting to limit guns from getting into the wrong by setting up a rigorous system that control who can and cannot obtain a gun. On the other hand, we have the people who believe that with such rigorous system in place is violated the individual rights that granted and protected by the United States Constitution. They believe that the rigorous system will prevent people from defending themselves and could be a violation of their privacy. Regardless of which side is right, if we want to understand more about our current conflict, we have to look back on how this hold debate started. The District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court case in 2008 that found the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 unconstitutional, which influence the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense by questioning the Second Amendment and laws that restrict a person from acquire guns.
...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”
My article deals with the right to bear arms mentioned in the Second Amendment. The conflict that my article highlights is how the Supreme Court has declined to hear cases that deal with gun-rights. This past Monday, the Supreme Court rejected two gun-rights cases which continued their seven-year trend of renouncing cases related to gun-rights. The two cases were Kolbe v. Hogan and Norman v. Florida in which Maryland and Florida’s gun-control laws were challenged. In Kolbe v. Hogan, Kolbe disputed about how Maryland’s ban on specific semi-automatic rifles and handguns was unconstitutional. However, in Norman v. Florida, Norman questioned the ban that Florida placed on openly carrying firearms in public. Likewise, the lower courts have supported