Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Gender - based violence
Gender - based violence
Gender - based violence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
Individuals’ right to keep and bear arms in self-defense should be further restricted. For example, George Zimmermann – neighborhood watch citizen responsible for the teenager Treyvon Martin’s death
The law gives the people the right to their homes and private property. Before this was put into place British soldiers occupied homes, barns, or and place they saw fit. The people were in a form of constant martial law. It also gives the people some power over the military, being one of the most important barriers for government over authority and civilian authority(Amendment III). With the very recent militarization of police it should be still be important to the American people. As people should know when their rights are being taken away and they do not have to house any police or soldier that comes to the
Gun Control in America is seen as ineffective, citizens believe gun control laws in place are not protecting lives, but taking them away. In order to solve this problem, many think more laws should be put in place. By doing so, they believe guns would no longer be in the hands of criminals and lives would not be ended before their time. In Christine Watkins’s article, “Stronger Gun Control Will Save Lives” She explains that if guns were objects that truly kept us safe, America would be the safest country in the world. She also states that a gun in any home is more likely to be mistreated, causing an accidental shooting. She also hints that more common sense laws would greatly benefit gun owners (Stronger Gun Control). One of her points is quite agreeable, more common sense gun laws would be entirely useful in the long run. By having more safety guidelines, such as; trigger locks, which make it so the gun cannot be used, keeping the ammunition and the gun separated, never pointing a gun at another person, unless your life is in life threatening danger, making sure the weapon is properly cleaned on a regular basis, and even teaching children how to properly handle weapons. By taking these common sense precautions to use, it would prevent innumerable accidental misfires in homes. On the other hand, laws put in place to simply make it more difficult to obtain a weapon is not the answer. By keeping guns out of the lawful citizen’s hands, only the lawbreakers will benefit. Author John R. Lott, Jr. wrote the book entitled More Guns Less Crimes, informs readers that by having a concealed weapon, as opposed to carrying a weapon openly, carries more potential to reduce crime rates across America. By concealing a weapon, no one knows who is ...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” –U.S. Constitutional Amendments
are expected to tell the truth, even if that truth was to put you in
The City Council of Kennesaw adopted the 1982 law initially as a “pro-gun reaction to a ban on handguns that had been enacted earlier that year in Morton City, Illinois” (People See What They Want to S...
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
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.
In current day society, it is frequently promoted as self-defense and our “duty” as Americans to own a gun of some sort. The second amendment to the constitution declares that “We the People” are allowed to bear arms because we live in a free State. Although these statements are true, at what cost? The question, “at what cost,” arises due to the recent push for an extension and enforcement of the second amendment. The people of the States have been pushing for desired concealed carry at public areas, such as schools. Statements and questions of concern have been on the as to whether or not this idea is “smart”. Contrary of it allowing some people to feel safe, the idea should be imposed. Guns are weapons and they have the history behind them
The worries of yesterday Eventually, we will have a tyranny without a strong, trustworthy constitution. We do not want to recreate exactly what the colonists were trying to avoid and escape from, which was tyranny. Tyranny refers to when a person has a lot of power, and has a lot on their hands, having complete control, and total control. In 1787 a group of delegates from 12 of the 13 states goes together to try to better the country.
Many people would argue that gun laws in America should not be put in place, as the sales of guns, are supposedly for the purpose of protection. In most instances, the people who buy these guns, are using for their own protection; however, a very small minority are using these guns for purposes other than protection, but for killing.
As violence and murder rates escalate in America so does the issue of gun control. The consequence of this tragedy births volatile political discourse about gun control and the Second Amendment. The crux of the question is what the founding fathers meant when they wrote, “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.” Since the writing of the Second Amendment the make and model of firearms has changed dramatically and so has the philosophies of the people. A rifle is no longer defined as a single shot, muzzle-loading musket used to primarily protect families or solely for food. Should the weapons we use today be protected by an amendment written nearly 222 years ago? Should the second amendment be rewritten? Does the Second Amendment apply to individual citizens? These questions spark extensive debates in Washington D.C. regarding what the founding fathers intended the amendment to be. The answer to this question lies in the fact that despite hundreds of gun control articles having been written , still the gun control issue remains unresolved. History tells us gun control debates will be in a stalemate until our judicial system defines or rewrites the Second Amend. This paper will examine the history of the Second Amendment, and attempt to define the framers intent, gun control legislation and look at factors that affect Americans on this specific issue...
... stricter gun control, the states are moving in a different direction. The reason behind this action is that the constitutionality of tighter gun control laws is becoming a question. Once the Supreme Court of the United States answers this question on the legality of infringing on the right to bear arms we will know what our exact right is.
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
Crime rate has steadily lowered as more guns enter the private market. There is no single answer to end the debate on gun control. Many variables must be examined, but the evidence presented cannot be ignored. Gun control does not end violence, but makes the law-abiding citizens more vulnerable. In the 1878 Arkansas case of Wilson v. State, a judge stated, “Common sense dictates that inanimate objects, such as guns, are not responsible for human behavior.