Shootings Test Limits Of New Self Defense Law By Ralph Blumenthal

Lupica, Mike. "Shame on U.S.: How Many Tiny Coffins Do We Need Next Time?" New York

A hot-button topic in the world of U.S. politics today is the controversy over whether or not new gun laws need to be instituted to keep Americans safe. We are a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and one that sticks to traditional values. With this, comes a great deal of incongruity, which makes for a very sensitive debate on gun control. On one side of the spectrum, we have those who take a more liberal stance; while they do in fact support the second amendment, there is no doubt that the U.S. has evolved significantly since the Constitution was written, hence creating a need for strict gun laws. On the other side of the spectrum, conservatives argue that as soon as executive action inhibits the fundamental principles in which

It appears as though the repetitive and unfortunate tragedies of mass shootings have become incorporated into the everyday life of American culture. We are forced to live in a heightened degree of fear, skepticism, and hesitation concerning our public safety. This phenomenon could reasonably occur in response to the vast ineffectiveness of the country’s current gun laws. Time after time similar misfortunes arise, yet few major changes are implemented to prevent them from reoccurring in the future. We cannot let this trend continue any further. Though some claim that increased gun control is useless and infringes upon the Second Amendment, it limits civilians’ weapons grade, obstructs those deemed unfit to wield such lethal weapons, and insures a greater level of security, thus it should be executed.

​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

In America, the average amount of people shot per year is 100,000; over ten thousand defenseless people are murdered. The Second Amendment’s proclamation 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” has been an extensive topic of debate. Moreover, the amendment has been one of many debates over the several years throughout America. The discussion of gun control is often debated as to whether or not it is morally right to legally bypass the Second Amendment to avoid unlawful uses of arms. The Second Amendment allows citizens to carry firearms specifically for protection, gun control hinders that right and places civilians’ lives in danger. In short, the U.S. government’s intrusive restrictions on gun laws prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves with firearms.

In recent years, the self-defense doctrine in several jurisdictions has been changing. Some jurisdictions have started using “stand your ground” laws, which change the traditional requirement that the person being attacked must “retreat to the wall” before using any kind of force. Proponents’ arguments include that the law merely codifies an individual’s deep-rooted right to defend oneself. Opponents’ arguments include that the law creates a “license to kill” and has negative racial implications.

According to The Columbus Dispatch, the woman who identified herself only as Lanita called 911 after the incident and was quoted saying, “Somebody just broke into my house, and they’re shot. They’re in my kitchen, and I don’t know if they’re alone or what. I heard a whole bunch of rattling on my side door.”

The United States Constitution is a social contract between the U.S. government and its citizens, which promises their [the citizens’] rights and liberties will be protected. The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that every citizen has the Right to Bear Arms; moreover, it means that an individual has the right to defend him or herself from physical harm. States are passing Stand Your Ground laws, which are similar to the Castle Doctrine (one has the right to defend oneself in the confines of his or her home), but the Stand Your Ground laws extend the range; instead, people may defend themselves using deadly force in any area they are permitted access (Jealous, 2013; Cox, 2013; Moore, 2012). Stand Your Ground laws contain flaws wherein predators or vigilantes may twist the law to their benefit, yet the Stand Your Ground laws are meant to justify the deeds victims must perform in order to defend themselves. Stand Your Ground laws are beneficial through their fundamental purpose, but how defendants are abusing the laws and how critics claim that the presence of a gun influences the victim’s decisions during an attack are detrimental to the enhancement of the laws.

The research you provided on Kansas is very detailed in nature. Majority of the states throughout the United States have implemented the “Castle Doctrine and the Stand Your Ground” laws for the protection of their state residents. I realize that some people are against these two laws because of the shooting incidents that have occurred over the course of five years or more. With that in mind, home invasions and arm robberies have been on the rise for the last ten years or so. However, as a victim of an arm robbery incident, I know both of these laws are very beneficial to ensure the safety of the general public, as well as their homes.

Every time a gun injures or kills in self defense it is used seven times in a criminal assault or homicide; furthermore the main argument against stricter gun laws is the fact that they are needed for self defense. Gun control is a very controversial and debatable topic, and many people have different opinions. In the Constitution, The Second Amendment gives the right to bear arms, but there have been restrictions on certain firearms since the Constitution was ratified. Still, gun violence continues to increase in America. There should be stricter gun laws in America because stricter gun laws will save lives, many guns are unnecessary for practical

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

A question that has rang in the ears of the American public and the judicial systems for over 60 years, “Does each American citizen have the right to own firearms or not?” This question was recently restated by Paul Rosenzweig the author of “Guns: A Loaded Argument”. In this commentary Rosenzweig often refers to how awfully indecisive the U.S. Circuits have been regarding the gun situation in America. Rosenzweig Also outlines how the Second amendment have given specific rights to specific individuals which “Shall not be infringed

Stop right there intruder! The Castle Doctrine’s premise, frequently credited to Semayne’s Case (Light, 2012), “[e]very man’s house is his castle” ("Semayne's case," 1604), is a citizen’s right to protect, with deadly force, their life and property when an intruder enters unlawfully into their dwelling. This is unlike most self-defense laws, which require withdrawing from harms path until you are backed into a corner and have no other exit (Light, 2012). While residing in one’s dwelling, everyone should feel secure without the worry of intrusion, burglary, or bodily harm. The rights defined by the Castle Doctrine have become imperative in the last decade due to the decreased use of

In some states where an expansion of the doctrine occurred, a car, workplace, or any place a person has the right to be, may be considered his castle. Hereby giving them immunity if using the castle doctrine to justify self defense in any of those locations. More and more assaults are happening outside of the home, as well as inside. With an expansion, however, there will be more cases of people invoking the castle doctrine. This adds a burden to the law enforcement officers with longer investigation times. There is also the possibility of people using it unjustifiably and claiming innocent

For modern theorists, the question of self-defense is one of moral authority within the nation to set the limits to obedience to the state and its laws given the pervasive dangers in a world full of weapons. In modern societies, states are increasingly delegating or privatizing their coercive powers to corporate providers of security services either to supplement or replace components within the power hierarchy. The fact that states no longer claim a monopoly to police within their borders, enhances the argument that individuals may exercise a right or privilege to use violence in their own defense. Indeed, modern libertarianism characterizes the majority of laws as intrusive to personal autonomy and, in particular, argues that the right of self-defense from coercion (including violence) is a fundamental human right, and in all cases, with no exceptions, justifies all uses of violence stemming from this right, regardless whether in defense of the