More Stricter Gun Control Laws

More Stricter Gun Control Laws
Throughout the past several decades gun control has been put under scrutiny by the media and the
general public. While the first major piece of gun control legislation was passed in 1911 in New
York, it was not until the 1960's that the gun control movement was truly galvanized("Gun Control
Reform").This occurred because of a series of major political assassinations that led to the Gun
Control Act being signed into law in 1968("Gun Control Reform"). To this day the gun control
movement lives on and many Americans believe that harsher gun control laws should be put into
effect. These supposed gun laws range anywhere from a nationwide ban of assault weapons to a
complete ban of guns. Supporters of gun control argue that taking away guns from ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Criminals tend to try and attack people who they believe will not be able to fight back. This is
evidenced by the fact that "every public mass shooting since 1950, except two has occurred in a gun
free zone"(Pratt). This quote provides evidence supporting the fact that shooters avoid armed
targets. Due to this fact it is clear that allowing people to be armed greatly decreases the chance they
will come into contact with a shooter and be at risk to lose their life. Even if an attack does occur,
allowing citizens to be armed often saves lives, "Take the Uber driver in Chicago earlier this year,
who was licensed to conceal and carry and who shot a gunman who was firing on a crowd of
people"(Phillips). Had the Uber driver not been armed more lives likely would have been lost.
Situations like this one are why it is extremely important that gun laws not be increased. If gun laws
in the United States are increased criminals will still be able to either find one of the 200 million
guns already in existence or find another way to hurt people( "Gun Control Laws"). Taking away
guns from the public just makes people easier targets because they lose the ability to defend
themselves. By increasing gun laws in the United States, many American Citizens will lose their
lives due to the fact that criminals will be more inclined to attack people they know are unarmed and
people will lack the ability to defend
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Gun Control Is A Fundamental Right
Firearms is a fundamental right in the Bill of Right which includes in constitution. America has a
long conflict history on firearms. Firearms plays a vital role in shaping American history and its
culture.
The majority of people in the United States owns a gun in their household whether it's them or
someone else in their household. Gun control has been a big issue in the United State and all around
the world. There are many cases that federal court have favored guns and they are also protected
under our first Ten Amendment in the Constitution. Over the past years there has been many cases
linked towards gun controlling and still haven't progressed. Guns violence has caused lots of threat
to the nations ,but people don't want to change the law. The best way to resolve the gun problem is
simply by changing the gun laws so, it will be difficult for people to own firearms. It is also quite
easy for criminals to own a gun illegally now.
History of gun control
Gun control was passed in 1934 to levy new criminal laws and along with gun control "New Deal
for Crime" was the first federal gun control law. This law requires all guns dealer to record their
document in national registry. In 1938, Roosevelt wins the "national firearm act of 1938". This act
requires all the gun seller to record their sale and prohibit any firearm sale to people with violence
crime background.
People use guns for many purposes, but guns should only be used for military purpose. Even though
the

District Of Columbia Vs Miller Case Study
District of Columbia v. Heller is a Supreme Court case that was heard in 2008 by the court. The
respondent was a D. C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty.
The respondent, Heller, filed a lawsuit to challenge District of Columbia handgun laws that
prohibited the carrying of handguns without a license and requirements that licensed firearms kept
in homes must be kept nonfunctional. The Supreme Court's majority opinion, written by Justice
Scalia held "that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the
city's total ban ... violated that right."1 The majority opinion addressed that the dissenting opinion
contained a different interpretation of the Amendment. The "dissenting Justices believe that it
protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service." 2 Justice
Scalia explained that the respondent believed that the Second Amendment protected an individual
right unconnected with militia service, and that it protects the right to use firearms for traditionally
lawful purposes such as self–defense. The majority opinion goes into a discussion of the definitions
of both the prefatory and operative clauses of the Amendment and the relationship between the two.
The majority opinion addresses the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Miller from 1939. The Supreme Court's ruling in US v. Miller held that since the weapon in
question in the case did not have "any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia"14 that the Second Amendment did not apply. The dissenting opinion believes that
the prefatory clause of the Amendment limits the rights provided in the operative clause. Justice
Stevens writes that the Amendment places a specific limitation and that "the 'right to keep and bear
arms' protects only a right to possess and use firearms

Persuasive Essay On Guns In America
In America the citizens were given rights by our founding fathers that were given to the citizens to
maintain order in the country; one of these is the second amendment, the right to bear arms. This
amendment allows United states citizens to carry a firearm for reasons like self–defense and hunting
("Second Amendment"). Now in this country there are some who wish to take that right away by
saying that firearms are the source of violence in this country. These people would have others
believe that guns are the reason that violent crimes happen everyday in our nation. The government
is trying to ban the use of guns in America, and guns are not even the biggest threat (Deakins). No
one should be able to take away a citizen's right to bear arms. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In 1989, a ban on guns was put into effect in California. Over the next five years there was a
twenty–six percent spike in murders related to guns. But since 1991, when the nation's murder rate
peaked, the murder rate has begun dropping drastically even though the number of gun owners has
increased dramatically ("A Ban On Assault"). In addition, studies done between 2009 and 2014
show that the number of violent crimes involving guns are nine times lower than ones involving
knives, blunt objects, and assaults with an unarmed assailant. Not many of these crimes are even
attributed to law–abiding permit owners, because of the five million people who have a hand gun
permit less than one one hundredth of a percent have committed a violent crime involving their
firearm

The Second Amendment : The Rights Of A Free State, The...
Dalvin Leary
Roger Marietta
English 1101
08 October 2014
Gun Control
The second amendment is "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 Second Amendment
protects an individual 's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use
that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self–defense within the home.
In 1939 The Court adopted a collective rights approach in the case of United States v. Miller,
determining that Congress could regulate a sawed–off shotgun that had moved in interstate
commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the
shotgun. That ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
(School)
The court strengthen the amendment with the case McDonald v. City of Chicago. Seventy– six year
old Otis McDonald and Adam Orlov and David and Colleen Lawson challenged Windy's city
because they were banning the possession of handguns in 1982. The case was organized by Heller's
attorney Alan Gura. Otis McDonald considers himself one of few defenders of peace and security on
the leafy, house–lined street where three of his children grew up and played. The gangbangers and
drug dealers have taken over, he says. "You go out there in the morning and pick up bottles and
things on the lawn," he explains, describing events of the past summer. "They're out there at three in
the morning, in the middle of the street, drinking and smoking their stuff. They throw stuff all over
your lawn, and you can't say anything, because they might up and shoot you." McDonald says his
house has been broken into three times and his garage twice most recently, early one morning this
past August by a man McDonald recognized from around the neighborhood. Does McDonald think
the robber planned to sell the stolen possessions for drugs? "Of course, of course," he says matter–
of–factly. (as cited in Tanaka) By a five to four decision the court ruled that the second amendment
was integrated by the fourteenth amendment the due process section so therefore individuals' could
have handguns in their household for self–protection.
Gun control has been a political hot potato for years.

Mcdonald Vs Chicago Essay
McDonald v. Chicago is a very simple case, but not one of little importance. Someone believed their
rights have been infringed upon and took out a lawsuit. In this particular case the question is
because of the
Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges and Immunities and or Due Process
Clauses, does the Second Amendment apply to the states(oyez). This means do the states hold the
right as an equal individual to "keep and bear arms" (wiki 3).
District of Columbia v. Heller was a similar court case ruling in
Heller's favor that the gun control laws placed upon them infringed upon their rights as US citizens
to "bear arms". In McDonald v. Chicago, Otis
McDonald, the petitioner, claimed that his case was similar to Heller's.
Therefore, the main question ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Samuel Alito, Justice in this case said, "It is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth
Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among the fundamental rights
4
necessary to our system of ordered liberty." He argues that the citizens of Chicago have equal rights
under the constitution stated specifically in the Fourteenth and Second Amendments (Zhang 14).
Under the Constitution of the United States, the right to bear arms is given to the citizens that live in
the US. This right as well as many others are not allowed to be blocked or denied by any law
without the law being unconstitutional. In the two court cases, District of Columbia v.
Heller and McDonald v. Chicago the right to these Americans to "keep and bear arms" was intended
to be restricted. Chicago tried to place a ban on handguns. In the court of law this was pronounced
to be unconstitutional. I agree with this ruling as I myself express my right as an American to keep
firearms on a daily basis. As of right now there are many who want to get rid of guns in private
homes altogether. They say that guns kill people and to stop them they need to get rid of them and
place bans on guns. Well if this is true then I guess they need to place

Supreme Court Case: Presser V. Cruikshank
Second Amendment and Gun Control
In recent years, the topic of gun control has become an increasing heated debate. Some think that
the second amendment does not grant people with the right to bear certain guns. Others argue that
under the second amendment, the right to bear arms involves all guns and that their right should not
be infringed on by the federal government. Issues surrounding the interpretation of the Second
Amendment has been involved in many Supreme Court cases throughout the years of the United
States of America.
The first time the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment was in 1876 in the case of,
United States v. Cruikshank. United States v. Cruikshank was one of the earliest Supreme Court
cases that involved the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Firearms Control Act of 1975 banned the ownership of handguns, automatic firearms, and
unregistered possession of firearms by residents. The act also required firearms that were kept at
home to be disassembled, bound by a trigger lock or unloaded. In 2008, in the Supreme Court case
of District of Columbia v. Heller the court ruled that the provisions of the trigger lock and weapon
ban violated the second Amendment. Moreover, that the Second Amendment grants an individual
the right to hold a firearm unconnected with the service of a militia. However, the court also ruled
that the registration of firearms remain in place. In addition, the cities ban on assault weapons to
remain in place as well. This case was a landmark case for mostly gun right advocates. This case
ruled that individuals not be restricted from possession firearms for law full purposes such as self–
defense in a

Supreme Court Case: Mcdonald V. Chicago
Genita Balkissoon
JLA 100
Professor Muska
2 May 2016 Final Paper
Recently the Supreme Court made specific rulings on the second amendment following the cases
district of Colombia V. Heller and McDonald V. Chicago. It is easy for me to agree with both
finding of the court. The second amendment in the bill of rights reads "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 rulings found in both cases make the second amendment which was board to
being with, very clear therefore it helps protect citizens rights when they're right to bear arms is
question.
According to Veronica Rose , In the case District of Columbia v. Heller , the U.S. ... Show more
Heller there was another Supreme Court case called McDonald V. Chicago. In this case the U.S
supreme court had to rule on if in fact the Second Amendment right which declares," 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", applies to the states of the U.S. In the city of Chicago prohibited
a person from possessing any kind of fire arm unless the person had a "legal" registration for the
gun. The clause of this rule that made it questionable to the person's legal rights is that the law made
it so that registrations of most handguns were prohibited. This therefore making it illegal to own
many hand guns, violating a person's right to bear arms yet again. A group of people took this to
court claiming that the ban on hand guns made it so that they were exposed to criminals therefore
they couldn't protect them self. The group filed a claim that there second and fourteenth amendment
rights were being violated. Chicago stated that Heller, the case in 2008 stated above, did not say that
the ruling thet had made applied to any state. Rose states that in the court had to rule on "whether
the right to bear arms was a fundamental right protected by the constitution and therefore applicable
to the

The Bill Of Rights Of The United States
The Bill of Rights lists certain freedoms and liberties that are guaranteed to the people of the United
States of America. Because these rights are in the Constitution, they are federal laws that apply to
everyone in America. To ensure there was no question as to who the Bill of Rights applied to, the
Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1868 giving anyone born in, or a citizen of, the United States
the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The amendment left clauses giving some interpretation
to the states and other local municipalities. The District of Columbia used one of these clauses to
ban all handguns within city limits. The District of Columbia's ban of handguns was a discrepancy
in which the citizens of the city were not able to rightfully exercise their Second Amendment right
to bear arms. After the law was looked at by the Supreme Court in DC vs. Heller, the court ruled the
law was unconstitutional and citizens living in the District of Columbia were being unjustly denied
their constitutional rights. After hearing the Supreme Court's decision in DC vs. Heller, a 76 year old
Chicago resident named Otis McDonald looked to remove a City of Chicago ban on handguns
which was similar to that in the District of Columbia. Joined by three other Chicago residents, Adam
Orlov, and Colleen and David Lawson, McDonald and his colleges filed a suit against the citywide
ban of handguns, and eventually became know as McDonald vs. City of Chicago. McDonald vs.
City of

The Constitution Of The United States
The Constitution of the United States has governed this country for over 200 years. The Bill of
Rights, also known has the first Ten Amendments of the Constitution, has protected the unalienable
rights of citizens in the United State. Selective incorporation was used in order to nationalize the
Bill of Rights and protect the immunities, rights, and privileges of all United States citizens within
the states. The success of Selective Incorporation, along with the 14th Amendment, ensured that
states could not put in place any laws that took away the constitutional rights of American citizens
that are preserved in the Bill of Rights. Although the 14th Amendment was not taken seriously for
almost a century, the Selective Incorporation process ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Fourteenth Amendment prevented the states from limiting the rights granted to citizens in the
Constitution and did not allow the states to enforce their own law. This amendment was nationalized
through a process of Selective Incorporation. The purpose of Selective Incorporation was to, not
only nationalize the Bill of Rights, but to also protect the immunities, rights, and privileges of all
United States citizens. The first eight amendments were 'selected' and 'incorporated' into the
Fourteenth Amendment, and through the Fourteenth Amendment, these amendments were
nationalized. Through several court cases and rulings, the Bill of Rights were brought into the
national spotlight and became protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified into the
Constitution in 1868. The confusion of whether or not the Bill of Rights applied to solely the
National Government began with the Supreme Court ruling in 1833, Barron v. Baltimore, saying
that the Bill of Rights only applied on a national level when dealing with governments and did not
apply to the states. The ruling of this Supreme Court case was used in order to urge the adoption of
the Fourteenth Amendment. In the concluding ruling, it was "declared that its 'privileges and
immunities' clause included 'the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight
amendments to

The Pros And Cons Of Gun Control
According to the second amendment we are entitled to the right to own firearms.This topic has been
in a constant debate about the problems of gun control and gun rights.The first three words in the
constitution is "We the people" ,this means that the authors of the constitution believed that they
were part of a group known "The people". According to the second amendment two groups are
mentioned The mithila and The people it's possible that the militia is a branch of the group The
people ,this means that there is people in the group the mittha and vice versa so it's possible for the
larger group to keep and bear arms. Having tighter restrictions on gun control limits us from
maintaining self defence and deprives us from our right the 2nd amendment. ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Columbia v. Heller was the case and it has ruled that the second amendment grants the right for all
citizens to own a firearm for their own personal use. The district of Columbia bans the possession of
handguns , no one may carry a handgun without a license unless the chief of police gives the ok.
Residents are required to keep anytype of arms "unloaded and dissembled". Heller is a police officer
authorized to carry a handgun when he's on duty, and he had applied for a registration for a handgun
so he can keep it at his home. Soon later the district denied his registration, The registration of
handguns, and the requirements for it violated the second Amendment. Heller argued the right to
bear arms is fundamental , when the courts review gun–control laws they should apply a strict
standard and only allow these laws to stand when the government can show that it has a very
important interest that is advance by the law. The court ruled the second amendment to the U.S
constitution grants people to keep and bear arms, this applies to state local and federal

Keeping The Arms that Built America
Keeping The Arms That Built America "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with
the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." This quote from Thomas Jefferson
exemplifies the cautious attitude the founding fathers had when they were creating the constitution.
Having just won a war with a tyrant country, they knew the trouble that a very powerful government
could cause. With America turning towards socialistic and capitalistic ideals, American citizens
must maintain the right to keep and bear arms and therefore returning America to the democratic
principles set forth by our founding fathers. The men who wrote the Bill of Rights, having just
escaped a controlling country, wanted to make a final check on the government that they had just
created (Richardson 2). They accomplished this with the Second Amendment which gives U.S.
citizens the right to keep and bear arms. And more specifically, the supreme court has decided that
people as individuals have the right to keep and bear arms rather than just a collective militia i.e. the
coast guard (1). Also, the Fourteenth Amendment prevents any stage from making or enforcing an
law that threatens the rights of a U.S. citizen (14th amendment 1). This means that state
governments can not pass a law that infringes upon the Second Amendment (McDonald v. Chicago).
People on the opposing side argue that relaxed gun laws cause more violence and more death (
Williams 1); however, Washington

The Rights Of The United States
John F. Kennedy once said, " Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall
pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the
survival and the success of liberty." Indeed throughout the course of U.S. history, people's liberty
has been emphasized as one of the most important rights of American people. Liberty is understood
as a basic right of freedom to which everyone can engage in certain actions without control or
interference by a government or other power. Based on that principle, selective incorporation is a
process of constitutional law in which some provisions of the Bill of Rights are nationalized to the
states through the nationalization of Fourteenth ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
To clarify, Near was accused of violating a law because he revealing wrongdoings of the local
government. Moreover, trial judge issued an injunction "preventing Near from publishing the
newspaper in the future" ("Near"). As one can see, Minnesota officials felt the need to stop and
prevent someone from incriminating their misconducts. But obviously, their decision has violated
Near's freedom of press which states have to obey due to "Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment" ("Near"). At the end, Near appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court; finally, the
court "voted 5–4 to declare the Minnesota Gag Law unconstitutional "("Near"). It is important to
realize that because of the process of selective incorporation, the federal government has the duty to
reinforce states in protecting their people's liberty. Similar to Near v. Minnesota, selective
incorporation had helped Lawrence Robinson win the case of Robinson v. California in which the
Supreme Court's decision regarded of the Eighth Amendment, the cruel–and–unusual–punishment
clause. The issue occurs when Robinson was "searched and questioned" by Officer Brown "on the
streets of Los Angeles" even

John Adams Dbq
Question 1: During the final hours of John Adams presidency, he named forty–two justices of the
peace and sixteen new circuit court justices, one of them being William Marbury, for the district of
Columbia under the Organic Act.This was his final attempt to let the Federalists take control of the
federal Judiciary before Thomas Jefferson became president. Although Adams was able to sign the
commission, his plan failed as his secretary of state at the time, John Marshall, was unable to deliver
the commission before the end of Adam's term on March 4, 1801. Soon after Thomas Jefferson took
office, he ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, to decline the delivery of Marbury's
commission. This caused William Marbury to go before the Supreme Court to argue his rights to be
appointed justice of peace by asking the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct James
Madison to deliver the commissions. Under the the Judiciary act of 1789 in which the Supreme
Court is granted the power to issue a writ of mandamus and give orders to the ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Marshall believed that congress could not give the supreme court the power to give Marbury his
commission and that the Constitution only could. Furthermore the document said nothing about the
Supreme Court having the power to issue such an order, thus making the Supreme Court not being
able to force Jefferson and Madison to appoint Marbury as Peace of Justice. While Marbury never
became a justice of peace, the court's ruling in Marbury V Madison was a very important Precedent.
( A legal decision that serves as an example in later court cases.) This eventually created the Judicial
review which gave the court the right to review acts of congress and the action of the president. If
the Court saw the law as unconstitutional, they could overrule the law. However at the end Marshall
ended says that the Supreme Court has the final say on

Essay on The Right to Bear Arms a Constitutional Conflict
The act of bearing a firearm was initially represented as a duty in England, up until King Alfred
converted this duty into a right. By doing so, individuals were allowed to use firearms for two
purposes: self–defense and hunting. In time, "kings chose to trust their subjects with arms and to
modify and supplement the militia if need be" (Malcom 3). Individuals were given the right to bear
arms in exchange for their participation in England's militia, which consists of "able–bodied male
citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service" ("Militia").
Additional implementations were then put into effect, one of them being King John's recognition of
the right to bear arms in the Magna Carta. This Angevin Charter will ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Although America gained its independence, its main concern still remains: to which degree should
its militia be controlled. Certain representatives believed that the militia should be abolished. Others
showed a preference for a selective militia that did not incorporate society in its entirety. Some
considered amending the meaning that was given to militia and appropriate it to America's
Constitution. "The convention decided to give the new congress the authority to determine the
future composition of the militia" (Cornell 43). By doing so, America's aspirations consist of a
standing army, a well–regulated militia and the right to bear arms.
The new congress decided to create a militia that would be just as important at a state level than at a
national level, "the new national government was given the authority to organize, arm and discipline
the militia. The states would maintain some measure of control by retaining the power over the
'appointment of the officers, and authority for training the militia according to the discipline
prescribed." (Cornell 43). James Madison helped draft the constitution of the United States of
America and he became a leader in the ratification of the Constitution. He is known as the father of
the constitution. James Madison's initial formulation of the Second Amendment went as

MKT Simulation Essay
Yinan Yang
MKT 300
John Eaton
Dec. 10th.2012
Simulation Paper
Q1+Q2
Major Decision:
A. Company Name:
In this first quarter, I used a name "High tech " for my new company. I choose this name is because
the company is about computers and high technology can totally represent the meaning.
B. Target Market:
At the point of Q1,I chose the workhorse as my first target segment. This is because workhouse is
the medium kind of computer, customers will be much more than the other two. People talked about
easy to use, low price, after sale service and support and other staffs to pick computers.
C. Responsibility:
President–Overall leadership is my primary responsibility in the company which meant that I had
the final decision and ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Number of ads:
Shark:Chicago 5.
Galileo: Shanghai 13
Synergy: Paris 5
Constellation: Paris 6
e) Balanced scorecard results: My total performance for Q1+Q2 was 8.989. Financial Performance
was –1.533. Market Performance was 0. Marketing Effectiveness was 28.500.
Q3
Major Decision:
A. Target market:
The target market in Q3 is still workhorse. I did not open another market in Q3 is my big mistake. I
knew my market share in workhorse is low but I didn't change it.
B. Brand management:
I did not change my brand design in Q3.
C. Pricing:
I did not change my price in Q3.

D. Advertising:
To improve my advertisement, I changed my order of ad. The order is brand name, rebate – special
price deal, easy to use, largest data storage on market, feature office applications, feature
engineering apps, link PCs with network/internet and picture of business professionals.
E. Hire Sales People:
I also changed my decisions about hiring. I put 1 support people in Chicago because I think people
are more care about after–sale support in workhorse. I also put 2 sales people for workhorse and 1 in
support.
F. Open Sales Office:
I opened Paris this time because the market size in Paris is the third largest.
Results for Q3:
a) Brand Judgment: I got 24 in Traveler, 1 in Workhorse, and 35 in Mercedes.
Price judgments: I got 93 in Traveler, 77 in Workhorse, and 100 in Mercedes.

Gun Control In Schools Essay
Although there are many ways that schools can assist students with mental illnesses, their hands are
also tied. For the amount of concern many Americans and politicians show for the failing healthcare
system, there is a lack of funding and a shortage of school counselors, allowing for school violence
to continue. Schools are educational settings, not clinical settings, and so they do not have the
authority to provide treatment services to students, as they are unable to obtain malpractice
coverage, making them liable for any incidents that would occur. There is only so much a school can
do for a student who has a serious mental illness such as:
"Mental health screening opportunities [that] allow counselors to identify students who are at–risk
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
However, the Courts have "universally agreed that the right provided by the Second Amendment is
not absolute and that many kinds of gun legislation designed to protect public safety remain valid."
Gun control supporters argue that the Second Amendment only represents the states rights to
maintain militias while opponents of gun control argue that the Second Amendment protects the
individual's right to possess firearms. Two U.S. Supreme Court cases, District of Columbia v. Heller
and McDonald v. City of Chicago, redefined the meaning of the Second Amendment. In the case of
District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court overturned Washington, D.C.'s long standing ban on
handgun possession and the requirement that all firearms presiding in a residence must be "stored
unloaded and disassembled or bound by a locking device (a requirement which had no exception for
self–defense)." While in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court ruled that "the Second
Amendment applies to state and local governments in addition to the federal government and
invalidated handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois," both wins for opponents of gun

Persuasive Essay On Gun Control
The right to bear arms has been around since the beginning of our great nation and has not changed
very much over the last couple of centuries. In 2015 there were 595,930 deaths caused by cancer in
the United States ("Number of Deaths for Leading Causes of Deaths"). Did you know that compared
to the astronomical number of cancer deaths, there were only 13,286 gun–related deaths in the
United States in the same year ("Guns in the US: The Statistics Behind the Violence")? There are a
copious amount of people who would hope that those statistics were switched so that they would
have an easier way of changing our right; to where the government controls and regulates our right
to bear arms. Many of the people that have tried to change our right have been actors, celebrities,
news stations, and many other left wing liberals. If we were to adopt this way of thinking, our
country would plummet quickly. Our right to bear arms is an unalienable right that is not to be
infringed upon. One of the main arguments of our second amendment is if there is regulated gun
control from our government; this could have a very negative effect. We often hear arguments about
The Second Amendment's actual intent, law cases, and shootings. The right to bear arms specifically
is nothing new. It was passed by congress on September 25th, 1789; it was then ratified on
December 15th, 1791. The Second Amendment states that "A well regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free state, the right

Police Profiling And The Media
Police Officer Shootings
What Is The Issue? Throughout the recent years many incidents have occurred between citizens and
law enforcement agents that has brought light to police brutality. The media has played the biggest
role by focusing mainly on negative actions that law enforcement agents take rather than the
positive ones. Law enforcement agents across the country have received a bad name and continue to
receive negative backlash for the many incidents that have occurred. No not every officer is perfect
and yes there are bad apples, however because the media has focused on the negativity, people
across our country are quick to jump to conclusion when they see or hear what is in the media.
Although most incidents may seem similar in the media, in light of the fact that they involve officers
shooting "innocent victims", every incident and case is different and the media does not always
show or tell both sides of the story. In this paper I will be investigating two incidents that have
occurred in the past year regarding black suspects being shot and killed by white police officers.
One case happened in South Carolina and the other in Illinois. After investigating and finding facts I
will then compare both cases to the Supreme Court case: Tennessee v. Garner 1985, and determine
what case is the most alike to it and why.
Walter Scott Case and Outcome
On April 4, 2015 in North Charleston, South Carolina, 50–year–old Walter Scott was shot and killed
by Michael Slager,

An Effective Purpose For Special Interest Groups And...
1.) When there is a case that a particular interest group has interest in, comes before the court, a
group has the option to file an amicus curiae brief to better present the groups breakdown of the
case. Now the impact that amicus curiae can have is that it brings policy perspective to the courts in
a way that a party's own individual brief may be unable to do so (White). The amicus curiae briefs
serve an effective purpose of advocating for special interest groups and in public business affairs.
There are circumstances in which these types of briefs could be needed to represent a client more
effectively, such as when appearing before the United States Supreme Court (White). A group will
utilize the amicus brief as a way to lobby the courts. These briefs serve a purpose of advising the
court in terms of policy ramifications and problems from a particular interest group's stance, all
while guiding the court to a fair and impartial decision. The amicus serves the role for an advocate,
but it is more effective if not acting in self–interest, but rather as means to serve others. Groups that
try to sway the decision making of the Supreme Court have been utilizing amicus briefs more often
as a tool of the court (Witte). Winning in the courts can be seen as a game of chess. Interest groups
know the game as well as anybody in the system. The amicus curiae briefs allow for these special
groups to play the game more effectively and is, in a sense, another tool at their disposal

Mcdonald V. City of Chicago Case Briefing
1. Case Citation: McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) 2. Facts: * Procedural
(history) – what lower courts decided * The U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit affirms, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to states or
localities. * Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court Of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit *
Reversed and remanded * NRA of Am., Inc. v. City of Chicago, 567 F.3d 856, 2009 U.S. App.
LEXIS 11721 (7th Cir. Ill., 2009) * District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S., 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171
L.Ed.2d 637 (2008), * held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for
the purpose of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
3. Issue(s): * Whether the Second Amendment the right to bear arms applies to individual states *
Whether the Second Amendment is incorporated in the 14th Amendment's due process clause. 4.
Holding: * The Court held that the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms for self
defense in one's home is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. * The
majority said the Second Amendment was applicable because it was "incorporated" in the 14th
Amendment's Due Process Clause, which guarantees that the states may not "deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law 5. Rule: * A City ordinance states that "no
person shall . . . possess . . . any firearm unless such person is the holder of a valid registration
certificate for such firearm." * Chicago, Ill., Municipal Code §8–20–040(a) (2009). * Further into
the municipal code, it prohibits registration of most handguns, essentially banning any type of
handgun possession by all citizens who reside in the City. * Chicago, Ill., Municipal Code §8–20–
050(c). * Like Chicago, Oak Park makes it "unlawful for any person to possess . . . any firearm," a
term that includes "pistols, revolvers, guns and small arms . . . commonly known as handguns." *
Oak Park, Ill., Municipal Code §§27–2–1 (2007),

Right To Bear Arms
In 2010, in the decision McDonald v. Miller, the U.S. Supreme Court formally incorporated the
second amendment of the U.S. Constitution through the fourteenth, and in so doing officially
applied the District of Columbia v. Heller decision to the states (McDonald v. Chicago, 2010). The
opinion of the case authored by Justice Samuel Alito based its principal argument on the claim that
the "right to bear arms" was not only a right guaranteed to the individual, but also a "fundamental
right" in the U.S. constitution (U.S. Const. amend. II. and McDonald v. Chicago, 2010). Gun control
and gun rights in the United States based on the second amendment have been a subject of intense
debate only relatively recently with the emergence of groups such as the National Rifle Association
and the Brady Campaign (in class notes). These initiatives have shaped public opinion on guns and
spurred countless debates among scholars, judicial figures, and citizens over the meaning and
purpose of the second amendment. In light of these arguments and conflicts between those
employing collective theory to understand the amendment and those interpreting the right to "bear
arms" as pertaining purely to an individual, it is not surprising that gun control and regulation in the
United States continues to motivate such passionate defenses and condemnations (U.S. Const.
amend. II and Cornell, 2010). These two arguments regarding the meaning and intent of the second
amendment present significantly different interpretations. While those who advocate for collective
theory argue that the amendment protects only the right of individual to use "arms" in ... Show more
That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but
the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent
crime (Tenn. Const. Article I, §

Mcdonald's Fourteen Amendment Analysis
Since the ratification of the first ten amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights, a concept of
justice and liberty was implemented into the lives of many American citizens. Americans seek equal
protection in response to issues and notably, many congressional cases. The rule of law in society
had become much more complex than it had been when the century began so, therefore, the United
States Supreme Court plays an essential role in weighing our nation's inalienable rights with natural
law. The decisions made by the Supreme Court to selectively "incorporate" the provisions of the Bill
of Rights though the Fourteenth Amendment expanded the fundamental rights of the people and
imposed limitation on states' power. Along with the Bill of Rights, ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
California of 1962. A California statute inflicted a cruel and unusual punishment on Lawrence
Robinson. Robinson was convicted for an addiction to the use of narcotics, and that the status of
drug addiction was considered as a criminal offense under the California state law. During a jury
trial, evidence used against Robinson was given by two Los Angeles police officers, who had
stopped him on the city street. The officers testified that the offender's arms were discolored,
scabbed, and filled with needle marks. Lawrence Robinson testified on his own behalf, denying that
he had ever used nor been addicted to narcotics, and denying the alleged conversation with the
police officers. Robinson then explained that the marks on his arms resulted from "an allergic
condition contracted during his military service" (Court). Nevertheless, the jury found the man
guilty of charged. The United States Supreme Court accepted Robinson's appeal and reversed the
conviction. The right of an individual from cruel and unusual punishment eventually became
incorporated by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applied to the states. The
Court held that the state violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights because the state of
California had confined him up to 90 days in jail for having a drug addiction and concluded that
addiction is an illness rather than a

America Does Not Need Gun Control Essay
Gun control is often considered as an effective means of protecting ordinary citizens. We all want to
feel safe, and it's easy to ascribe notions of safety to the idea of gun control. Unfortunately, feeling
safe and actually being safe can be very different things. Gun control sounds wonderful in theory:
no guns means no shootings. If only it were that simple. When one considers some of the worst
shootings and gun–related crimes in recent history, it's peculiar to realize how often these occurred
in places where guns were illegal to carry or even own. It's downright disturbing to realize that, in
some cases, the only armed person in sight was the one planning a crime. A sign that says 'no guns'
might as well say 'no resistance'. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The recent decision in McDonald v. Chicago says that "the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller." (slip op., 44) The
result of this decision is that Chicago residents are recognized as fully within their rights to keep
guns for home defense, and laws that are essentially a ban in their effect are actually
unconstitutional. Maybe you're thinking that, if anyone was in a situation that would necessitate a
gun, surely it is a matter for the police? While the police do serve a useful function and are essential
in the due process of law, they are not wholly effective at crime–prevention. In fact, according to the
Supreme Court, "nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to
protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors." (DeShaney v.
Winnebago Cty. Soc. Servs. Dept. 195). Is protection a goal of the police force? Probably.
Nonetheless, it is not a requirement; there is still an expectation for citizens to be responsible for
their own defense. That being the case, it seems almost farcical to prevent a populace from
defending itself by limiting its access to defensive tools. To suggest guns as a means of self–defense
is sometimes criticized as playing unfairly on emotions, and indeed for many there may never come
a time that they would imagine using one. But then, it is largely because of

Mcdonald V. City Of Chicago Case Study
In the Case McDonald v. City of Chicago resident Mr. Otis McDonald is a 76 year old retired
engineer who has lived in his neighborhood for about 40 years. Over time his peaceful community
has been overtaken by gangs and drug dealers. His home and property have been littered on a
regular basis and his garage has been broken to about 5 times. Mr. McDonald legally owns a
shotgun but believed it would be "unwieldy in event of a robbery." So he wanted to purchase a
simple handgun. But living in Chicago in at this time he was unable to purchase one, due to
Chicago's requirement that all firearms to be registered to the city, McDonald was unable to register
the purchased handgun when Chicago started to refuse all handgun registration requests since the
citywide handgun ban was passed in 1982. McDonald and three other Chicago residents joined up
and made a lawsuit which became McDonald v. City of Chicago, a court case to allow him and
Chicago residents to own a handgun. The constitutional issue at hand is the violation of the second
amendment rights to bear arms (firearms). Using the Fourteenth Amendment, McDonald will be
able to make his case protecting his right from infringement by local governments. ... Show more
The Supreme Court's decision in this case will determine the power of states and municipalities
control the possession of handguns. The Supreme Court discussed the topic of self–defense and
personal safety in relation to this case. They discuss that infringement of the second amendment
would inherent the basic human right of self–defense. Several California district attorneys added
that handguns in particular are especially useful weapons to defend the average citizen or their
property against criminals to keep the basic human right of self–defense still in

Mcdonald Vs Chicago Case Study
McDonald V. Chicago The McDonald V. Chicago case was argued March 2, 2010 and was decided
on June 28, 2010. This case was a very large step toward citizens being able to "keep and bear
arms". The case decided if the second amendment applies to individual states. Most believed that
the states could not overpower the second amendment with their own rulings. Otis McDonald, a 76
year old Chicago resident, felt that he was no longer safe in his own neighborhood. Gangs and drug
dealers were taking over and he felt that the shotguns he owned for hunting purposes were not
adequate protection. His home had been broken into five times and the most recent robbery was
committed by a man he recognized from his neighborhood. Mr. McDonald decided that a handgun
would be a better means of self protection but was unable to purchase one due to the Chicago city
wide handgun ban of 1982. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
McDonald and three other Chicago residents, Adam Orlov and David and Colleen Lawson, joined
forces and filed a lawsuit that became McDonald V. Chicago.(McDonald V. Chicago 1) The major
question raised was "does the fourteenth amendments privileges make the second amendment
applicable to the states?" This question had many people confused as to what the answer really was.
The case was organized by Alan Gura, the same attorney who argued the Heller case. The Dc V.
Heller case also dealt with the second amendment rights and this attorney was able to win the case.
Justice Samuel A. Alito wrote for the majority. He stated " it cannot be doubted that the right to bear
arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as
states legislated in an

Mcdonald Vs Chicago Case Study
McDonald v. City of Chicago McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) is a landmark decision of
the U.S. Supreme Court involving Amendment II and Amendment XIV in 2010. Amendment II
states that individuals has the right to "keep and bear arms" and Amendment XIV protects a citizens
rights from being restricted from the states through the due process of law clause. Petitioner Otis
McDonald, 76 at the time, was a retired maintenance worker who resided in Morgan Park in the
City of Chicago. McDonald bought his house back in 1971, but claimed that drug dealers and gangs
had takeover the community. He said his lawn was often cluttered with litter, his house was broken
into three times, and his garage twice. McDonald being an avid hunter, owned two shotguns at the
time, but felt the guns were too bulky and awkward to carry around. He wanted to purchase a
handgun to carry for protection and in defense of his home. Despite this, McDonald was unable to
purchase a handgun because of Chicago's banning of handguns in 1982. Subsequently, in ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The crucial question regarding this topic is whether or not the second amendment is appropriate "to
the states and their political subdivisions." When McDonald took the case to the U.S. Supreme
Court, on June 28, 2010, they ruled a 5–4 decision vote for Otis McDonald citing that it should be
selectively incorporate as applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment–the due process
of law clause. This meaning the fourteenth amendment and selective incorporation protects
American citizens from the states restricting their rights or life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The Court suggested that an individual has the right to obtain and carry a handgun or other firearms
for self–defense and other lawful purposes being that it is an American fundamental for our
country's "scheme of ordered liberty and system of

Essay about The Endless Gun Control Debate
The Constitution of the United States of America went into effect on March 4, 1789. It has been
amended twenty–seven times. The first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights. It contains
valuable freedoms which the founders thought necessary and were left out of the constitution. The
Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791. (United States Constitution) The Second
Amendment to the Constitution has drawn a great deal of criticism especially in recent years. The
topic of gun control is controversial, and issues involving it have gone to the Supreme Court. The
Second Amendment States, "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 ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
All militia members had to provide their own weapons and ammunition. (Harr, Hess, & Orthmann,
2012) This leads to the controversial issue with the Second Amendment. Was it created at a time
when a militia was necessary and thus outdated today? State militias today are in the form of the
Army National Guard and use weapons and ammunition provided by the federal government. Some
believe that this makes the Second Amendment invalid. If the Second Amendment was written to
pertain to the state militias of the time then it would no longer hold relevance today. However, this
issue was addressed by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. The Supreme Court has
mentioned the Second Amendment in several cases but few have been directly addressed the scope
of the Amendment. District of Columbia v. Heller involved a dispute over a handgun ban in the
District of Columbia (D.C.). In February 2003, six D.C. residents filed a lawsuit challenging the
Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975. The Act prohibited D.C. residents from owning
handguns. The six residents were assembled by Robert Levy, who was affiliated with the CATO
Institute. The CATO Institute is a research organization. Its stated mission is, "originate,
disseminate, and increase understanding of public policies based on the principles of individual
liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace. Our vision is to create free, open, and civil

Assault Weapons Should Be Banned
ith the increase in mass shootings and the rising numbers of gun violence in the United States, many
citizens and congress members have proposed restrictions on gun ownership through legislation that
would affect background checks, gun safety courses, and bans on weapons. One the most popular
ideas to help control gun violence is the ban on assault weapons manufacturing and sales. Generally
people who lean left on the political spectrum are favoring the legislation to help control the
violence and make their communities safer. Whereas people who lean to the right end of the
political spectrum say that government, state or federal, should have no control over their firearms,
and that the proposed legislation is an attack on their second amendment ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The U.S. government did conduct studies on what type of firearms were used by criminals and how
they obtained the firearms to commit the crimes, but did not take measures to control the weapons
that actually caused harm or took measures to control who the weapons were used by. In a 1991
study by the U.S Department of Justice, before the ban even was in the form of a bill, the
government had information on how criminals used guns which could have been used to create an
effective ban in 1994. In this study and estimated 2,100 inmates committed violent crimes with
some type of military style weapon. This number represented less than 1% of inmates in prison for
violent crimes. Other inmates used rifles/shotguns (5%), other weapons such as clubs or blunt
objects (11%), handguns (24%), or no weapons used in the violent crime (54%) ( Survey of State
Prison Inmates 17,18). Out of all the inmates interviewed (711,000) a very little portion of them
used a firearm that was focused on in the ban. The number of the then banned weapons used would
be even lower since not all of the used weapons that were reported were illegal under AWB.
Looking at the numbers of what types of weapons were used in mass shootings in the U.S. also
showed that the type of guns focused on by Congress was not correct. Between 2006–2016 there
were 45 mass shootings in

Media Report On Gun Legislation
Jesus Eliseo
Mr. Hunt
Government
12/10/2015
Media Report
Gun Legislation
Gun control has been a very controversial topic lately because theirs has been definitely a lot of
shootings in US recently. People believe that being owner of a gun is a constitutional right because
of the second amendment. So any person should be allowed to purchase a firearm legally without no
problem. One huge problem that has been happening recently this years is how guns have become
too dangerous because people are using them too much for crimes now. Guns are not being used for
protection no more, now they are being used for crimes which people believe should not be allowed
and they should be doing something about.
According to the video of Annenberg classroom 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." The article, "House blocks effort to force vote on gun legislation", talks about gun
control legislation to stop more highly mass shootings in the United States. The republicans run
house blocked a democratic consideration about gun control legislation. The bill that was brought to
the house is about the government being allowed to ban suspected terrorist from legally purchasing
guns. Like I had said, the house blocked the bill because when it comes to the 2nd amendment every
individual has the right to use or buy guns to arm themselves for personal use in their home, for

The Importance Of The Second Amendment: The Right To Bear...
Civil Liberty
The second Amendment was passed by Congress September 25, 1789, and ratified December 15,
1791 in the first 10 amendments that form the Bill of Rights. (Brooks, 2013) "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. (Brooks, 2013)"
After the ratification of the second Amendment many Americans have been arguing over the
meaning and the interpretation of the amendment. Some have argued that the meaning of "A well–
regulated Militia" clause means the right to bear arms for only those in the official militia to carry
guns legally (Brooks, 2013). On the contrary, others believe that the amendment gives every citizen
of America the right to own firearms, free of federal regulation, to protect themselves in the face of
danger (Brooks, 2013).
After the second amendment was ratified in 1791 the Supreme Court took part in a case challenging
the state and federal laws of the second amendments. (Board, 2010) In the 1876 U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
After the incident, James Brady devoted his life to the fight for gun control. (Johnson, 2014) In 1993
the Brady Handgun Violence and Prevention Act bill passed. The law requires background checks
on firearms purchases from federally licensed dealers in the United States, and imposed a five– day
waiting on purchases. (Johnson, 2014) Some have argued that the Brady law has no impact of the
gun control issues and the Brady Bill seems to have been a failure. In 2012 after the Sandy Hook
Elementary School massacre government officials and Congress revisit the impact of gun control
that Brady Law has. (Johnson, 2014) Yet, other believe that Brady Law had a lasting impact on gun

Stricter Gun Control Research
Throughout the past 20 years, the purchase of guns have increased drastically but at the same time,
crimes with firearms are down a shocking 69% (Snyder). Gun control is often used to create laws
for the intention of reducing gun injuries or death by gun and might involve background checks or
creating difficulty to own a gun altogether. Some believe strict gun laws will help America reduce
murder rates. However, others believe gun control will remove the right to bear arms as an
individual. America needs to refrain from enforcing gun control because citizens have the
constitutional right to own guns and gun control will fail to decrease murder rates which would
better be decreased by a basic education of gun safety. The Second Amendment ... Show more
At first, the idea of fewer guns in a country equals less crime is commonly thought. Although that
may be true in some cases, a criminal is still a criminal with or without a gun. Reducing guns might
reduce some crime but there are still many other methods of murder or suicide. Also, if a criminal
will kill, they will most likely steal. Guns that are taken away from criminals could be bought
illegally or stolen. 37.4% of prison mates with crime involving a gun was not owned by them
(Planty). Another common thought is that many countries have proved gun control is affective.
However, only a few countries like England and Japan have strict gun control laws and low crime
rates. Countries like Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden all have less gun control and less
crime. More countries with less gun control have less gun crime than the countries with strict gun

Columbia Federalism Case
The Supreme Court: Federalism and Gun Controlto three of the District of Columbia's provisions
(Merkel, 2012). The following are the three 5 provisions from "District Firearms Control Regulation
Act which are: D.C code 7–2502.02, barred the registration of handguns; D.C code 22–4504
prohibited carrying a pistol without a license; 7–2502.02 required all lawfully owned firearms be
kept unloaded/disassembled or trigger locked" (Merkel, 2012). This deals with Federalism because
one party wants to do things their way and the other party disagrees. One state cannot be stronger
than the other one because there is supposed to be equality. If that cannot be achieved than the
economy would fail. The Supreme Court's decision made sure that both sides

The Right to Bear Arms
Introduction In this essay highlighting the second amendment, I will focus mostly on the right to
bear arms. The Second Amendment states, " 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." I think that the
founders put this in the constitution to keep the sense of freedom they had in England concerning
arms, and other than a small force of paid officers, the United States had no professional, trained
army. Instead it relied almost exclusively on civilian militias for self–defense, focusing primarily on
men aged 18–50. In the event of attack by a foreign country, there would be no trained military
force to hold back the British or the French. This changed when John Adams became president.
When John ADams became president, he made a proffessional navy to protect vessels and trade
ships from pirates. Today, there is no military draft at all. The U.S. Army is made up of a mix of
full–time and part–time professional soldiers. This is important in maintaining the US armed forces
and the morale of the troops. Finally, this paper will focus on the current controversies of the second
amendment, the past precedents, and the overall meaning of the amendment. Its important to realize
how the meaning of the amendment has changed over the years, and how it affects your life and
how you live it. Knowing all the amendments current meanings is vital to being a knowledgeable
citizen.

Gun Control Tool Essay
Is Gun Control Needed or Useless? The feeling of losing a loved one or child is a something that no
one can imagine without experiencing it. In Newtown Connecticut on December 14, 2012, twenty
parents got a call saying their child had been killed when a heavily armed man by the name of Adam
Lanza stormed into the elementary school and opened fire. He brought with him two semi–
automatic pistols and a semi–automatic rifle. Police later found Lanza dead in the elementary school
after he killed himself (Aradillas, 2012). One of the reactions to this mass shooting is to put more
restrictions on gun rights. Some people believe that this will help reduce the amount of shooting that
happen. Other people believe that putting these restrictions on gun ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Heller case in 2008 and the McDonald v. Chicago case in 2010 (Holt, 2013).
The District of Columbia law makes it illegal to carry a firearm that is unregistered. It also makes it
mandatory to keep all firearms that are indoors nonfunctional. It also prohibits the registration of
handguns; therefore making it illegal to carry a handgun. D.C police officer, Respondent Heller,
wanted to register a handgun just to keep at home, but the District denied his request. Heller filed a
lawsuit hoping to enjoin the city from "enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing
requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger–lock
requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home". The Court dismissed
it, but their decision was reversed by the D.C. circuit. Their reason for reversing the Court's decision
was that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a firearm. They also stated
that required that the cities ban on handguns as well as the requirement of keeping all firearms
nonfunctional violated the citizens Second Amendment rights

The Rights Of The United States
Former U.S. President John F. Kennedy once said, " Let every nation know, whether it wishes us
well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend,
oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty"("John," p.1). Indeed, throughout the
course of history of United States, peoples' liberty has been established as the most important aspect
of American people. Liberty is understood as a basic right of freedom in which everyone can engage
without control or interference by a government or other power. Based on that principle, Selective
Incorporation is a process of constitutional law in which some provisions of the Bill of Rights are
nationalized to the states through the Fourteenth ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
To clarify, Near was accused of violating a law because he revealed wrongdoings of the local
government. Moreover, the trial judge issued an injunction "preventing Near from publishing the
newspaper in the future" ("Near," p.36). As is evidenced, Minnesota officials felt the need to stop
Near from incriminating their conducts. But obviously, their decision violated Near's freedom of
press which state government have to obey due to "Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment" ("Near," p.37). Near appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court; and the court
"voted 5–4 to declare the Minnesota Gag Law unconstitutional "("Near," p.37). It is important to
realize that through process of selective incorporation, the federal government has the duty to force
state government to protect their citizens' liberties. Similar to Near v. Minnesota, selective
incorporation had helped Lawrence Robinson win in Robinson v. California in which the Supreme
Court's decision regarded the Eighth Amendment, the cruel–and–unusual–punishment clause. The
issue occurs when Robinson was "searched and questioned" by Officer Brown "on the streets of Los
Angeles" even though "he was not doing anything wrong" ("Robinson,"

Judicial Restraint Essay
Judicial restraint and judicial activism are two opposite approaches to the checks and balances
system found within the legal system of the United States. Although both approaches are used to
prevent the use of any fraudulent power within the government, judicial activism is the
interpretation of the Constitution via contemporary traditions and values. Judicial restraint, on the
other hand, limits the power to strike down a law by faithfully applying precedent. This polarity
may be difficult to distinguish between, however three methods have been developed to easier
analyze which approach has been used. Based on the actions of the Supreme Court, if the outcome
of a case upholds laws and statues, upholds stare decisis, and strictly adheres to the Constitution, the
judge used judicial restraint. Moreover, judicial activism would not necessarily uphold the laws and
statues, stare decisis, or adhere to the Constitution. Therefore, the most distinguishing factor that
sets these two apart is their ability to influence a change to public policy; judicial activism is a direct
form of public policy change.
The distinction between judicial activism and judicial restraint may seem very prominent and clear
cut now, yet the 2010 McDonald v. the city of Chicago case arguably uses both approaches. On June
28th, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled (5–4), that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,
which guarantees "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," applies to state and local
government as well as to the federal government (BRITTANICA). The suit was filed to challenge
the provisions of a 1982 Chicago law that generally banned the new registration of handguns and
made registration a prerequisite to owning a firearm. This case is the perfect example to showcase
how judicial restraint and activism both act on the outcome of a case.
The 2010 McDonald v. the city of Chicago case upheld precedents established on the Duncan
standard– a more inclusive test based on the Duncan v Louisiana case– compelled the court to
reject, on stare decisis, the main defendant's argument. The Supreme Court adhered strictly to the
Constitution, however, and based their outcome on the fourteenth amendment. This amendment,
focused on

Mcdonald's Second Amendment Case Summary
Facts: The case is about whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. Similar to
the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008); the right to sleep and bare arms for the purpose of self–
defense. McDonald a retired maintenance engineer brought a suit against the City of Chicago for
depriving him from his Second Amendment right to bare arms. In 1982 a law was passed in the City
of Chicago banning registrations for hand guns. But, there is also a requirement by state law to have
all firearms registered, making it impossible for McDonald to own/register disown guns. Procedural
History: The lower courts decided a writ of certiorari; the Supreme Court granted a review of the
ivil case after three separate Chicago residents filed their

Will Gun Control Reduce Gun Violence
Will Gun Control Reduce Gun Violence? For better understanding it is always important to know
the roots of an issue, gun ownership and gun control date back to the colonial days; even further
back to the British heritage. In 1689 the British Parliament enacted the Bill of Rights, written in this
document is the statement: "That the subjects in which are protestants may have arms for their
defense suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by the law". Part of the meaning this article was
given, was that not only the nobility and rich landlords could own firearms, making the claim that
Englishmen did not guarantee the right to possess weapons to ordinary citizens. Although there is no
actual evidence that this article served as a sort of draft for the American second amendment, it is
often referred to as the foreigner version of it. Like the American Declaration of Independence, the
British Bill of Rights was unmistakably written to declare various illegal practices of James II.
Coming from this background, then continuing to the tyrannical acts in the American colonies from
Great Britain; like imposing unfair taxes and depriving colonists of a fair trial by jury. The second
amendment was mainly written to balance the power between federal and state military necessities.
These revisions initial purpose was to be a political compromise between the state militias and an
official national army. The Founding Fathers also recognized the established mistrust from the
people

More Stricter Gun Control Laws

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Featured

Featured (20)

More Stricter Gun Control Laws