District Of Columbia V. Miller Case Summary

Title of Case: Lau v. Nichols: 414 US 563 (1974) Plaintiff: Kinney Kinmon Lau Defendant: Alan Nichols, San Francisco Unified School District Setting: San Francisco, CA Major Issues Raised/ What is the case about? This case examines the responsibility that a school district has to establish a program that deals with the various language issues of non-English speaking students.

After the District of Columbia v. Heller ruled that bans on personal guns was unconstitutional Otis Mcdonald filed a lawsuit against Chicago and Otis park saying that it should be the same ruling for the states. Verdict: 5-4 decision for Otis McDonald, majority given by Samuel A. Alito Jr.. He said tthat he Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states. Due Process and the Rights of the Accused Powell v. Alabama (1932) 9 black kids were accused of raping white women in the state of alabama.

oshua Haas October 6, 2014 Intro to Criminal Justice Miller Vs. Alabama On June 25, 2012 the Supreme Court had rule 5 to 4 that Miller was guilty to committing murder and was sentence to life in prison without the possibility of parole. On that day in June the court had struck down all of the statues that was requires for a child under the age of 18 to be sentenced life in prison.

This law is a clear violation of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The wording of the Second Amendment is clear and does not mention anything regarding regulations. We as the court must ignore the

Heller case was concluded on June 26, 2008 by a 5-4 decision. The final decision was delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia. After fighting since 2002, Dick Anthony Heller had won in the Supreme Court. The decision was that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” (Justice Antonin Scalia, Oyez.org)

Alito began by explaining the historical context of the Bill of Rights and the concept of Selective Incorporation through Due Process Clause of the fourteenth amendment. Though, historically, the second amendment had yet to be incorporated, Alito clarified the importance of doing so now by mentioning the fundamental nature of self-defense and how the right to bear arms is necessarily one means of guaranteeing self-defense. Alito justified the need to incorporate the second amendment by citing the historical use of the fourteenth amendment to do so with other Bill Rights amendments, and by pointing out the importance of holding the right to bear arms to similar standards vis-à-vis the other rights within the Bill of Rights. Lastly, Alito deemed the privileges and immunities question to be superfluous since the Court had already determined the right to bears arms to be substantive guarantee under the fourteenth

" Most citizens United Sates have agreed and supported the Second Amendment because the Second Amendment has allowed people to defend themselves; yet, The Second Amendment should have been eliminated when the National Guard replaced the militias in 1903. (Ethical) The Second Amendment reads, "A well-regulated militia

Incorporation Doctrine and McDonald v. Chicago The McDonald v. Chicago case was a crucial decision by the Supreme Court regarding the 2nd Amendment and state law. This case is interesting for a couple of reasons in my opinion. Firstly, the case revolves around legislation of the 2nd Amendment which is a right held dear to myself and many other Americans. Secondly, the case gives an example of the incorporation doctrine being fully applied.

Government lawyers begged to differ claiming that the 2nd amendment right did not imply to the individual right it was a “collective” right. That weapons such as rifles are used as common (war) defense not to be used as self defense so therefore the rights are meant to be used for militaristic power. However the supreme court overturned the lower court's ruling and claimed that the act was actually constitutional. However the court agreed that the National Firearms Act was put in place to keep states from pre forming militias not for the meaning of taking it away from personal possession therefore the act could be misunderstood under militia services. Then again the court also agrees that even a militia is made of a group of free men that would provide their own weapon stating they were unsure of militaristic

Heller, in which Breyer disagreed with the majority and believed that the District of Colombia, did in fact have full permission to limit handgun laws. In his dissenting opinion, being the pragmatist that he is, Breyer states that the Second Amendment only provides context for militia-related, not self-related defense and concludes this, in turn, means that this amendment does not disable government intervention in pursuing these laws. Because Breyer is not an originalist of any sort, his dissenting opinion is one that tells of this nature and the belief that the Amendments do not provide

INTRODUCTION Guns. It is a topic that the Supreme Court hasn’t dealt with since Heller v. District of Columbia in 2008, and they have not looked poised to take it on anytime soon. However, a new case has found it’s way into the 9th Circuit: Peruta v. San Diego County. Due to the duration of time between Heller and Peruta the courts have been forced to rule on Second Amendment cases without the guidance of the Supreme Court. Peruta is now forcing the courts to begin examining the Second Amendment again and looking into what rights American citizens are given from it.

Heller.", Oyez). Furthermore, in dealing with the text of the Constitution as well as the history, the court held that “militia” will not be limited to citizens currently in the armed forces but, “…comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense” (Syllabus). The majority felt that due to the period in which the Constitution was penned, to define the Second Amendment as restrictive, and allotting the right to possess firearms to those only serving in the United States military, would be to juxtapose what was expected of the Amendment and enact a state-sponsored power that the Constitution was trying to safeguard the people from ("District of Columbia v. Heller. ", Oyez). Therefore, in correlation to the original and plain meaning of the Second Amendment, the operative clause as Scalia stated, should be interpreted to “…protect an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” (Syllabus).

In contrast, Opponents believe that arms should have regulations because they cause violence, such as mass shootings and murder. Despite the differences on each side, the second amendment aids in the protection of all individual rights of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense when necessary. As a result, the definition of the right to bear arms has to be provided. The second amendment is quite a chicanery clause to understand, the first part of the clause states “ a well-regulated militia.” “Well regulated…” was defined in the eighteenth century, as properly but not overly regulated (Roleff 69).

The Second Amendment protects the right of people to keep and bear arms. This amendment was a controversial among different people in the government. It was between letting the people keep their weapons or to not let the people keep their weapons. This amendment was important to the framers of the Constitution because it provided the country with a well-regulated militia. 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.

According to 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 Second Amendment specifically states that “the right of the people to keep