The Castle Doctrine is a bill that was passed which lets you defend yourself with necessary force in your residence if someone is breaking into your home. Criminals like to go after easy targets such as, the elderly, disabled citizens, children, and people who are unarmed. Every citizen has the right to live free and happy, if they are attacked they should be able to defend themselves and their property without being charged as a murderer.
The previous state law, if someone unlawfully enters your home or attempts a car-jacking, you are required to first retreat instead of immediately fighting to protect yourself. The trouble is on the home owner to define that an intruder intends to do them bodily harm before the home owner can use appropriate force against them (InfoKwik). Having a gun for personal protection is a constitutional right. When facing an armed criminal an armed citizen levels the playing field. When you are in your own home and someone is breaking in and you see them armed or unarmed, they have no right to be in your home anyway. The castle doctrine, in this ca...
After the Constitution was written, the new born nation was immediately split into two political sides, the federalists and the anti-federalists, over the ratification. Federalists, southern planters or people that tended to hold interest in trade, advocated a strong executive. On the other hand, anti-federalists, back country people or people involved in business but not in the mercantile economy, opposed the ratification of the constitution. The two sides, after much debate, were able to come to a compromise after the Bill of Rights was included into the Constitution.
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
In Louisiana, gun ownership is one of the most valued rights because many see it as the only means for self-defense. Though it is a right, if crime rate increases due to gun violence, should self-defense hamper with the enforcement of gun-control laws? Currently, gun related crime is at “18.9 [...] deaths for every 100,000 people [...]” (“States With The Most Gun Violence: 24/7 Wall St.”). This statistic places Louisiana in one of the top spots for gun related crime, thus reminding us that gun-control is necessary. Gun-control measures can include restricting weapons such as the AK-47; a gun designed for battle-like encounters. Why would ordinary citizens need AK-47's anyway?
This is called the right to bear arms and is guarantee under the U.S. Constitution. The second amendment clearly states that “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.” The first ten amendments are also known as the Bill of Rights. Therefore, the pro-gun activists are right. The right to bear arms like the right to free speech should be protected. However, the pro-gun activists do not the fully understand the reasons for this right. The right is for protection not from burglars but from Indians and the state. At the time the U.S. Constitution was written, many American families were living on the frontier lines where there would be a continual threat from Indians. The U.S. had a standing army but it was too far and is not readily available to protect these families when Indians would attack. This made it necessary for families to have guns in the home. The Indians were an external threat. An internal threat was the government. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that if a government failed to protect its citizen and instead became the enemy, the citizens had the right to overthrow it. After the Revolutionary War, the Founding Fathers did not want to replace an oppressing army which was the British with one of their own. They felt that an armed citizen was the best type of army. This is what was meant by a well regulated militia. The militia would consist of every able-bodied man who was trained using their own arms for purposes of local defense and in actual military events. This local well regulated militia is the equivalent of the National Guard. In present times, we no longer have the need to protect ourselves from Indians. As for an oppressed government, we have our National Guard. The original intent of the right to bear arms does not apply to modern
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.
According to Thomas Jefferson, all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights. Unalienable rights are rights given to the people by their Creator rather than by government. These rights are inseparable from us and can’t be altered, denied, nullified or taken away by any government, except in extremely rare circumstances in which the government can take action against a particular right as long as it is in favor of the people’s safety. The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America mentions three examples of unalienable rights: “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. I believe these rights, since they are acquired by every human being from the day they are conceived, should always be respected, but being realistic, most of the time, the government intervenes and either diminishes or
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.
The aftermath of the attacks on September 11 demonstrated that this was necessary. The Constitution is not designed to render the nation defenseless against people who have no value for human life, and who will use whatever means necessary to harm others to advance their goals. In conclusion, the Patriot Act gives the government the tools in which are necessary to keep America and its citizens safe.
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.
On August 26, 1789, the assembly issued the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen.” Through judicial matters, this document was written in order to secure due process and to create self-government among the French citizens. This document offered to the world and especially to the French citizens a summary of the morals and values of the Revolution, while in turn justifying the destruction of a government; especially in this case the French government, based upon autocracy of the ruler and advantage. The formation of a new government based upon the indisputable rights of the individuals of France through liberty and political uniformity.
S. says “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.” (Amendment II) People believe that the amendment talks about the right to own arms and that there should be no limitations but limitations are needed for the safety of the people. In the beginning of the second amendment, there is a part that said about a well regulated therefore to have the right of owning a gun there should be limits on what and how people should use guns. Restrictions do not take any right away it just gives the option to be protected if a person desires but in a safer environment. Laws over the year has shown a lot of gaps and fault that will be used by people who want to commit a mass shooting also over the years, laws have not been able to stop criminal activity and it seems to be getting worse, the recent mass shootings all over the U.S bring the question about laws and if they are working. According to Officer Amanda Santa Cruz “The current laws use in Colorado let a person acquire a gun by only passing a background check but there has to be no felony or domestic violence in the records, and the person has to be 21 years or older to own a gun. A person may not purchase magazines with more than 15 bullets and only Denver bans the use of assault rifles. A person does not need a permit or license to own a gun home only if they want to open carry. People have to keep in
Michels, P. (2012, May 8). Joe Horn and Five Years with the Texas Castle Doctrine. Retrieved February 9, 2017, from https://www.texasobserver.org/joe-horn-and-castle-doctrine-shootings-in-texas/
For ages, Philosophers have struggled with the dispute of whether human actions are performed “at liberty” or not. “It is “the most contentious question, of metaphysics, the most contentious science” (Hume 528). In Section VIII of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume turns his attention in regards to necessary connection towards the topics “Of Liberty and Necessity.” Although the two subjects may be one of the most arguable questions in philosophy, Hume suggests that the difficulties and controversies surrounding liberty (i.e. free will) and necessity (i.e. causal determinism) are simply a matter of the disputants not having properly defined their terms. He asserts that all people, “both learned and ignorant, have always been of the same opinion with regard to this subject and that a few intelligible definitions would immediately have put an end to the whole controversy” (Hume 522). Hume’s overall strategy in section VIII is to adhere by his own claim and carefully define “liberty” and ‘necessity” and challenge the contemporary associations of the terms by proving them to be compatible.
There is nothing wrong about protecting yourself, but we have to make sure that the weapons we use to protect ourselves don 't get to the wrong people. " The debate about gun control is a global issue. However, it is more intense in the United States of America than any other region (‘Gun Control’ par 1). The groups against gun control show concern about violent crime and they don’t perceive gun control is the answer to violence committed using guns. However, they support strict laws against gun-related crimes and better enforcement of those laws. On the other hand, those who support gun control are of the opinion that background checks are
The right to Life, Liberty, and Security, is one of the most important citizen rights that you can have. With the right to life, it means that any individual has the right to live, and shouldn’t be killed by anyone. With the right to Liberty, it means that we have the right to be free, and do almost anything we want. Lastly, the right to security means that you are guaranteed to be protected the best way possible, while you are in that country. Even though it is just one of many rights, they all fall under the right to freedom. Which everyone just wants the right to do what they want, and to stand up for what they believe in. Everyone should have the right to freedom, as well as the right to life, liberty, and security.We felt that this right was the most important because it summed up the rights that we need as citizens. Like the right to not be enslaved, can count as the right to Life and Liberty. So in our opinion, the right to Life, Liberty, and Security, is the one that should be one of the first applied rights to our lives. The next few paragraphs will describe how we feel on these particular rights, as well as examples of how these rights are being violated all over the world.