The Right to Bear A rms

The Right to Bear Arms By Brian, James and Kyle

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.”

Table of contents • Miller Vs. The United States • Quilici Vs. Morton Grove • U.S Vs. Emerson Summary Case Case Summary Summary Case Questions?

UNITED STATES v. MILLER ET AL.SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES307 U.S. 174 Back to Table

Miller vs. The United States(Summary) • Carried a shotgun with a barrel of less then 18inched from Claremore, to Siloam springs • Did not have a stamp-affixed written order • Law says that having this gun might infringe on the peace and dignity of the United States. • Argue that this weapon is not a weapon that a militia would use and does not contribute to the common defense • The other argument was that in Virginia in 1785, people where required to own firearms.

Miller vs. The United States (conclusion) • Miller was given back his gun in the end • The court said that in this case the second amendment was being infringed. Back to Table

VICTOR D. QUILICI vs. VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVEUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Back to Table

Quilicy Vs.Village Morton Grove(Summary) • There is also a second open question concerning the Second Amendment: If it does create a right of individuals to own firearms, is the right enforceable against state regulation as well as against federal regulation? • In 1876, the Supreme Court said the right--if it existed--was enforceable only against the federal government, but there's been a another bullet > wholesale incorporation of Bill of Rights provisions into the 14th Amendment since then, and it's not clear that the Court would come to the same conclusion today.

Quilicy vs. Village Morton Grove(conclusion) Back to Table • In Quilici vs. Morton Grove, a case involving a another bullet > challenge to a Chicago suburb's ban on the possession of handguns, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the right was not enforceable against the states. • Quilicy and Reichert argue in this court that the Morton Grove ordinance interferes with the federal gov’s ability to maintain public security by preventing individuals from defending themselves and the community from “external or internal armed threats.”

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TIMOTHY JOE EMERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, SAN ANGELO DIVISION 46 F. Supp. 2d 598 Back to Table

U.S. vs.. Emerson(Summary) • On August 28, 1998 Timothy Emerson’s wife filed for divorce. • She also applied for a restraining order to protect herself from threats, attacks, and to keep her financial situation stable • Mrs. Emerson alleged that Mr. Emerson had threatened to kill the man whom she had been having an adulterous affair with • At a court hearing Mr. Emerson agreed to the terms of the restraining order, but was not told by the courts that possession of a firearm would be in violation of the restraining order

Back to table U.S. vs. Emerson(Conclusion) • Mr. Emerson was arrested and indicted on possession of a firearm while under a restraining order - 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) • Emerson argued that, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), violated his second amendment right to bear arms • The indictment could only be dismissed if it was acknowledged that Emerson had the right as an individual to bear arms • The court decided that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) was unconstitutional and dismissed the case against Emerson

Question? • Does the second amendment give individuals a right to bear arms? • Does the historical evidence support the conclusion that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess firearms? • If the Second Amendment does create an individual right, how broad is the right? Does it include the right to possess arms that would be useful to a militia today--hand grenades, rocket launchers, etc.? Or does it create only a right to possess arms that would have been used by a militia in 1791--muskets? Or is the right answer somewhere between these extremes?

Questions(More) • The Second Amendment speaks of the right to bear arms. Does this suggest, for example, that there is no right to possess weapons that could not be carried, such as cannons? • If the underlying concern that inspired the Second Amendment--fear of an abusive federal government oppressing states and their citizens--no longer exists, should that affect how we interpret the Amendment?

Back to table Questions(More) • Which of the following regulations of firearms is constitutional?: (1) an age restriction, (2) a four-day waiting period for purchase of a firearm, (3) a ban on the carrying of concealed weapons.

The Right to Bear A rms