The Second Amendment Case Analysis

“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.” - Second Amendment. Throughout history, this sentence of twenty seven words has caused an intense debate. The polemic is that some people claim that a gun control policy is unconstitutional, while others disagree and even say it is necessary in order to reduce crime. Now, what does gun control mean? If it means to analyze who is responsible enough to own a gun by a “Universal Background Check”; that sounds right to everyone. But in the article “What Are Obama’s Gun Control Proposals? An Easy Guide” published in the National Journal by Matt Vasilogambros. The author states that the “gun-control

The second amendments is the "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". This amendment was added to keep the people voice in the government. Congress wanted to keep the people safe by giving them to have the rights to have weapons to defend their families, limited government power, but also give the state more power to their militias. Alexander Hamilton thought it was important for the government to have a strong central government and thought that the Second Amendment was dangerous to the government. They didn't want people to have weapons because it will allow the slaves to escape. Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists were the slave

Most people would link violence and crime problems with gun control in America. The debate that Americans face today is the freedom the Second Amendment gives citizens and whether or not the country should repeal it. While some people feel that repealing it should solve the problem, others believe that it is one of the most important basic freedoms we have as Americans. Federal gun control laws are unconstitutional, and I believe the Second Amendment is both an individual and state right.

The second amendment has protected and shown that it is being used in cases of self-defense. In Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use revealed that United States civilians used guns in self-defense from crime at least 980,000 times per year. This survey shows how many citizens are using guns to defend themselves which would otherwise have been seriously harmed if the individuals did not have the firearm to defend themselves. A gun was used in 980,000 cases for self-protection. In Armed Resistance to Crime, a 1993 a nationwide survey conducted in about 5,000 homes found that over five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun “for self-protection or the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere.” This amounted to around 1,000,000 incidents per year. This excludes all “military service, police work, or work as a security guard." Citizens who had possession of a gun were able to defend themselves in such cases. This brings up the point that many people are exercising their second amendment right accordingly and using it in cases of self-defense. It has also been shown that criminals have avoided or retreated from civilians believed to have a

To begin with, the Fourth Amendment was constituted to protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, there are times and cases in which an investigation is started and evidence is collected illegally. There are doctrines such as The Exclusionary Rule and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree in place to eliminate any evidence to be used in court if obtained illegally. This paper will differentiate the two doctrines as well explain how and why the two could possibly be incorporated in the case of “Who did it.” We will also look into the immunity that government officials may have pertaining to civil liability and see if officers affiliated with the “Who did It” case are protected from their actions.

The Second Amendment of the constitution of the United States was adopted on December 15, 1791. “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” (Gun Control Laws). There is controversy on the exact meaning of the Second Amendment. There is also a lot of controversy surrounding guns and gun laws, and what could be done to prevent gun violence and mass shootings in our country. There has to be a way to prevent gun violence, while still upholding the Second Amendment and protecting the rights of law abiding citizens who have the right to own and carry guns legally.

As today's society struggles with the continuous problems surrounding gun violence, many Americans are questioning whether or not our Second Amendment is applicable to our society as of today. Undeniably, our circumstances as a nation in the United states differs dramatically from when The Constitution adopted the Second Amendment in 1791. This document 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." At this time our founding fathers had no idea of the challenges we would currently face as a nation and recently the United States recorded its deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S history. Proving that the Second Amendment has not been applicable with today's society, it being outdated, the frequent tragedies through gun violence, and the lack of regulations currently being displayed.

Although there are many people against the Second Amendment, one must understand that the constitution of the United States recognizes and safeguards rights that profoundly exist in the Bill of Rights. Does the second Amendment continued to be valid today? The answer is quite simple: yes, it does. Civilian or militia does no need to protect themselves from the government, since the government has strong armed forces to protect the state and the federal government. However, the right still remains valid and it is mostly used for protection of common criminals, since the police can take a long time to show up when needed; and it is also used for hunting and other recreational activities.

The United States of America has always been referred to as the land of the free. The United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights were put in place to ensure that the citizen’s basic rights were not violated. Even with these documents in place, certain rights have often been the center of heavy debate. The fourth amendment which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, or the first amendment which protects free speech, or the fifth amendment which protects you from self incrimination. Of all these rights that have been brought into question, the most recent is the second amendment which secures the right for the people to keep and bear arms.

Through the years there has been an ongoing discussion on the Second Amendment and how it should be clarified. The issues that are being discussed is whether the government have has the right to manage guns. There are possibly two sides to this Second Amendment debate, where one is the collective side, which that the right was given only for collective ambitions. The collective side is in more favor since it has stricter gun control laws, that being said the government feels that having stricter laws on guns would lower the number of crimes that are committed with guns which would help save thousands of lives. Meanwhile gun control laws may subtract the criminals’ access to purchase or obtain firearms, in addition, the same law would limit

December 4, 2015, in San Bernardino, CA, fourteen residents at the Inland Regional Center lost their lives due to Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik shooting many residents. Attending a holiday party at the center for thousands of residents with disabilities, Mr. Farook left the center “angry” over a dispute and came back with Ms. Malik. Armed with .223- caliber assault rifles and semiautomatic handguns, they killed 14 residents and wounded at least 17. Shootings seem to be becoming more habitual, therefore, people fear guns and want to enact gun control laws. Recent attacks from terrorist groups spark the question of who should have the right to own guns. Controversies over interpreting the Second Amendment date back to the turn of the twentieth century because so many viewpoints and regulations have accumulated; it is all in the manner of which interpretation citizens subscribe to- loose verses strict interpretation. Due to the controversies, certain gun regulations have been enacted and fears have risen because of this.

The fourth amendment prohibits any search and seizures on a person without a warrant to give the right to privacy. No probable cause is needed for a search and frisk. In Hiibel v. 6th Judicial Circuit the defendant was arrested because he refused to give up his identity. The court found that it was necessary for the person to give up their identity because it can inform the police if that person has a mental illness, is wanted for something else, or can clear their name. In Illinois v. Wardlow the defendant ran away when he thought the police were trying to catch him for narcotics in a high crime area. The court believed that the officers had reasonable suspicion for the unprovoked flight. This case is similar because both the defendant ran

The Second Amendment to the Constitution was adopted on December 15, 1791 protects the right for people to “keep and bear arms.” This issue is always a controversial topic not only around election time but becoming more and more a subject for conversation everywhere we go. Gun ownership in the U.S. has a tremendous high rate as well as gun violence. At least 270 million firearms are owned by Americans and found in 47% of homes. In 2015, an estimated 13,286 people were killed by guns and 26,819 injured. When it comes to the workplace, roughly 2 million employees are affected by some form of work place violence and is not always about work. Two-thirds of homicides in the U.S. are a result of personal relationship problems.

This article mainly talks about the extent of how far the second amendment goes. A federal court ruled that the second amendment includes the right to bear arms but not the right to carry a concealed weapon in the public, this upheld one California law that restricted who can carry concealed weapon in the public. The law stated that there must be a good reason for carrying a conceded weapon in public. Gun enthusiast were greatly upset with the law because they felt like this law violated the second amendment, the right to bear arms. A panel with three judges ruled in favor of the gun supporters but The United States Court of appeals would rule against the original decision with a 7 to 4 ruling. The court’s ruling written statement basically

In recent years, there have been many stories of shootings taken place across various parts of the United States, all of which bring up the highly volatile topic of gun control. Unlike many other wealthy countries, such as the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, and Australia, where gun ownership is strictly regulated, by in large-the US has very little universal gun control laws throughout the nation. This great controversy is based on the Constitutional right of the Second Amendment, stating, “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.” Though this is a Constitutional right, unlike many other Amendments, understanding they were written in