Case 1: Ambramski V. United States

Dick Heller was a police officer in the District of Columbia. The District refused Heller’s application to register a handgun he wished to keep in his home. Heller filed this lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia on grounds of the Second Amendment. Heller sought an injunction against enforcement of the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement prohibiting the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement as it prohibits the use of functional firearms within the

​In his book ‘Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America,’ Wrinkler tried to present an unbiased view towards the second amendment in the light of historical events and landmark cases that has tried to challenge or obtain the court’s interpretation. One of such cases is the ‘District of Columbia v. Heller’ case, which was argued and decided in 2008 (Supreme Court of the United States). For several instances, the provision in the Second Amendment that pertains to the right of an individual to bear arms has been contested. In fact, the clause, which 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”, is perhaps the most misconstrued clause in the American constitution (Supreme Court of the United States). Adding to the significance of this highly debatable clause is the fact that a flurry of gun related incidences has happened in the United States in the past that has taken many lives including that of children. Among the most significant authors that has attempted to answer the question or at least laid out the possibilities regarding the second amendment is Adam Wrinkler. In light of Winkler’s arguments as well as with other sources, this paper will examine the historical

Terry was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. Terry motioned for the trial court to suppress the gun on the grounds that his Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure had been violated and therefore, the gun should not be admissible evidence in court. The trial court rejected the motion and Terry was convicted.

To summaries this essay we have learn, and debate about the political, controversial issues when it comes to what our founding father's attention where when it come to the constitution right to bear with well-regulated militia arm is it only support by the State or based on the individual right carry firearms? James Lindgren had answered that question by saying American citizen has an obligation to obey the law of the State according; and as a citizen we do have the right to bear arm provide we go through background checks to apply for a gun

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.

On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 District of Columbia Police say they responded to a shots fired call at about 7:20 pm on Tuesday, September 30, 2014 in the 1400 block of Downing Street in Northeast, District of Columbia. Police say, thirteen year old, Tyrin Caldwell died after being shot while he and his fourteen year old best friend, who remains unnamed, played with a handgun that police later found to be unregistered. The boys had emptied the gun of the magazine cartridge and where playing with what they thought was an unloaded handgun; however the two teens made the fatal mistake of not checking the chamber of that gun, where there was a bullet still in it. That bullet, still in the gun, discharged while in the hands of Caldwell’s best friend. The bullet entered Caldwell’s armpit and traveled through his body and lodged himself into a dangerous area between his heart and lungs. Caldwell later died that evening during surgery. Caldwell’s family was devastated by their tragic loss. When asked, his father said he hopes police do no press charges on Caldwell’s 14-year old best friend because they both made the mistake of playing with this unregistered handgun. Though this is quite a noble stand made by Caldwell’s father, someone should be held accountable for the premature death of this young boy. I believe all states should have stronger gun control laws so that firearms do not wind up in the wrong hands, such as children, irresponsible adults, the mentally ill, and criminals.

In 1939 during the case of United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court ruling supported preservation of a “well regulated militia.” The United States Supreme Court held and proved in this scenario, that the Second Amendment does not guarantee individual rights or “protect the possession of such an instrument” (Oyez, n.d.) in all situations.

Frank Layton and Jack Miller were accused of disregarding the 1934 National Firearms Act, which controlled and saddled the exchange of specific sorts of guns, and required the enlistment of such arms. The reason why Miller and Layton were arrested was because they carried an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines and the gun did not have a stamp that certifies that the taxes had been paid. In protecting the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act, government legal advisors offered a few interrelated contentions.

"Please provide your complete employment history." Object information is readily available. Mostly the defendant has a copy of your job application that includes your work history and irrelevant to the subject matter. In addition, the defendant cannot use you prior job performance or history or character against you in civil cases. Zenian, 283 F. Supp. 2d at 40 (D.D.C. 2003) (“If the District is offering the [prior employment] evidence to show that plaintiff has always been a bad employee, it is doing exactly what it cannot do: introduce evidence of a person’s character to prove that his behavior on one or more occasions was consistent with that character. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC, 382 F. Supp. 2d 536 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) Using plaintiff’s prior

Caldwell challenges the separate convictions and sentences he received for the crimes of conspiracy to commit burglary of the Alkaline Water Company and conspiracy to commit burglary of Bella Furniture. The State agrees that it was improper for Caldwell to receive two sentences for conspiracy when the State did not argue that Caldwell committed two separate conspiracies. The parties, however, disagree as to how to resolve this issue. The State maintains that while the cumulative sentence must fall, the underlying convictions should nevertheless remain and that we should remand the case for re-sentencing. Caldwell, however, contends that we should simply vacate the conviction and sentence for the charge that we determine is least supported

Officer A will represent the wrongdoing partner and Officer B will represent the officer who follows the Code of Ethics. In the scenario provided, Officer A along with Officer B stopped a motor vehicle for no tail lights. Upon running a check of the motorist’s driver license, vehicle registration, and vehicle insurance, all returned a valid check. Officer A informed Officer B that he had a bad feeling about the driver of the motor vehicle; therefore, Officer A ordered the motorist out of the vehicle. After the motorist exited the vehicle, Officer A searched the vehicle and discovered a gun under the front seat. Officer A placed the motorist under arrest and took him to the police station. Officer A runs the serial number of the gun through the system and it came back a positive hit as being used in a homicide. Officer A confronts the motorist with the discovery, resulting in the motorist confessing to the crime of murder. Officer B is fully aware that Officer A

The second amendment to the United States Constitution states the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This is giving the American people the right to own weapons. There is no separation as to who can and cannot be allowed to bear arms. It is a blanket statement, that when looked at for this case, gives all individuals that right, regardless of their criminal background.

“Yes, people pull the trigger - but guns are the instrument of death. Gun control is necessary, and delay means more death and horror.” This was written by the former New York Governor, Eliot Spitzer, just after the 2012 shooting in Oak Creek Wisconsin. Because I agree with Spitzer, I would like to affirm the resolution which states Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. For simplicity in the debate today, I would like to offer the following definitions: The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary offers that a handgun is “a small gun that you can hold and fire with one hand.” I view the phrase ‘private ownership’ as ownership by people who are not officially associated with the state. The affirmative will support the value of utilitarianism, which as defined as “the belief that the right course of action is the one that will produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people.” In order to achieve my value premise, the affirmative offers the criterion of cost benefit analysis, a philosophical perspective asking us to weigh the worth of some action through the advantages and disadvantages it incurs.

Facts: The parties represented in this case: The National Federation of Independence Business, 26 U.S. states, and many individuals and businesses. These subjects filed against the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius and other entities. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Act of 2010. The plaintiffs deemed two provisions unconstitutional, the Medicaid expansion provision and the individual mandate. The individual mandate provision penalizes U.S. citizens financially if they did not purchase a health insurance policy. The Medicaid expansion provision required the states to increase in size or risk losing their existing federal income. The U.S. District Court of Northern District of Florida ruled in favor for the plaintiffs. The Eleventh Circuit from the Court of Appeals agreed and disagreed in some areas but concluded that the Individual mandate was unconstitutional. Certiorari was permitted by the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the split decision between the appellate courts.

In the State v. Rusk, Defendant Rusk was found guilty by a jury of second-degree rape, however, there was no evidence of resistance. The question for the Court was whether there was sufficient evidence of apprehension on the part of the alleged victim such that the jury could find Defendant guilty.