Jump to content

User talk:J8079s/Sandbox2amnd

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by J8079s (talk | contribs) at 02:19, 5 April 2018 (→‎aus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my sandbox talk page for sources see User:J8079s/Sandbox2amnd

rev.1

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. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights however The right to arms predates the Bill of rights as the Natural law right of self-defense and as the civic duties to act in concert as posse comitatus and or in defense of the state. The 2nd amendment recognizes this right. Neither the courts nor scholars paid much attention to the the 2nd amendment for many years. While the courts trended in a vague and paradoxical way towards a now discarded "States Rights" theory, they never denied an individual right to arms. Scholars have since demonstrated that the amendment was written to protect the rights of individuals, the "standard view". Accepted by the courts in Heller and incorporated against the States in MacDonald. The "Sophisticated Collective" or "Individual/ Collective" was endorsed by the disent in Heller.

rev 2

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. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights however The right to arms predates the Bill of rights as the natural rights of self-defense and to resist oppression as the civic duties to act in concert as posse comitatus and or in defense of the state. The 2nd amendment recognizes this right.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, the Supreme Court ruled on several occasions that the amendment did not bar state regulation of firearms, considering the amendment to be “a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government and not upon that of the States.” The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms and is incorporated against the States via the due process clause of the 14th amendment. This represented the first time since the 1939 case United States v. Miller that the Supreme Court had directly addressed the scope of the Second Amendment.

In 2008 and 2010, the Court issued two landmark decisions to officially establish an "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

outline

1 Text
2 Pre-Constitution background
 2.1 Influence of the English Bill of Rights of 1689
 2.2 Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution
3 Drafting and adoption of the Constitution
4 Ratification debates
5 Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights
6 Militia in the decades following ratification
  • Post-ratification Commentary/Early commentary
  • State equevalants
  • Pre-Civil War Case Law
  • Post-Civil War Legislation/14th amendment and debate

In the aftermath of the Civil War, there was an outpouring of discussion of the Second Amendment in Congress and in public discourse, as people debated whether and how to secure constitutional rights for newly free slaves. See generally S. Halbrook, Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876 (1998) (hereinafter Halbrook); Brief for Institute for Justice as Amicus Curiae. Since those discussions took place 75 years after the ratification of the Second Amendment, they do not provide as much insight into its original meaning as earlier sources. Yet those born and educated in the early 19th century faced a widespread effort to limit arms ownership by a large number of citizens; their understanding of the origins and continuing significance of the Amendment is instructive.

  • 4. Post-Civil War Commentators.

7 Scholarly commentary

7.3 Meaning of "well regulated militia" 7.4 Meaning of "the right of the People" 7.5 Meaning of "keep and bear arms" 8 Supreme Court cases 8.1 United States v. Cruikshank 8.2 Presser v. Illinois 8.3 Miller v. Texas 8.4 Robertson v. Baldwin 8.5 United States v. Miller 8.6 District of Columbia v. Heller 8.6.1 Judgment 8.6.2 Notes and analysis 8.7 McDonald v. Chicago 9 United States Courts of Appeals decisions before and after Heller 9.1 Before Heller 9.2 After Heller

dump source

Can Gun Control Work?

By James B. Jacobs Warren E. Burger Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Research in Crime and Justice New York University[1]

aus

new

dissent[2] [3] https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6350&context=lalrev[4]

  1. ^ University, James B. Jacobs Warren E. Burger Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Research in Crime and Justice New York (2002-09-12). Can Gun Control Work?. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195349214. Retrieved 21 July 2014.
  2. ^ http://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/denovo/HARDY_2010_61.pdf. Retrieved 5 April 2018. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ "Madison's Second Amendment opposes Heller – The Double Standard". Retrieved 5 April 2018.
  4. ^ https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6350&context=lalrev. Retrieved 5 April 2018. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)