However, these warrants are non absolute as the powers given to us by the Bill of Rights are given to reading by the judicial system.
Documentary History Historical context The 2nd Amendment, starting in the latter half of the 20th century, became an object of much debate.
Concerned with rising violence in society and the role firearms play in that violence, gun control advocates began to read the 2nd Amendment one way. On the other side, firearm enthusiasts saw the attacks on gun ownership as attacks on freedom, and defended their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment just as fiercely.
If the authors of the 2nd Amendment could have foreseen the debate, they might have phrased the amendment differently, because much of the debate has centered around the way the amendment is phrased.
Despite the rhetoric on both sides of the issue, the answer to both questions is most likely, "Yes. Standing armies were mistrusted, as they had been used as tools of oppression by the monarchs of Europe for centuries. In the war for independence, there had been a regular army, but much of the fighting had been done by the state militias, under the command of local officers.
Aside from the war, militias were needed because attacks were relatively common, whether by bandits, Indians, and even by troops from other states.
Today, the state militias have evolved into the National Guard in every state. These soldiers, while part-time, are professionally trained and armed by the government. No longer are regular, non-Guardsmen, expected to take up arms in defense of the state or the nation though the US Code does still recognize the unorganized militia as an entity, and state laws vary on the subject [10 USC ].
This is in great contrast to the way things were at the time of adoption of the 2nd Amendment.
Many state constitutions had a right to bear arms for the purposes of the maintenance of the militia. Many had laws that required men of age to own a gun and supplies, including powder and bullets. In the state constitutions written around the time of the Declaration of Independencethe right to bear arms was presented in different ways.
The Articles of Confederation specified that the states should maintain their militias, but did not mention a right to bear arms. Thus, any such protections would have to come from state law.
The Virginia Declaration of Rightsthough it mentioned the militia, did not mention a right to bear arms — the right might be implied, since the state did not furnish weapons for militiamen. The constitutions of North Carolina and Massachusetts did guarantee the right, to ensure proper defense of the states.
The constitution of Pennsylvania guaranteed the right with no mention of the militia at the time, Pennsylvania had no organized militia.
One of the arguments of the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debates was that the new nation did not arm the militias, an odd argument since neither did the U. Today, in my opinion, the voters are much too sophisticated to elect a leader whose stated aims would be to suppress freedom or declare martial law.
For the leader whose unstated aim it was to seize the nation, the task would be more than daunting — it would be next to impossible. The size and scope of the conspiracy needed, the cooperation of patriots who would see right through such a plan — it is unfathomable, the stuff of fiction.
There are some who fear the rise in executive power under the second Bush presidency is just such a usurpation, and in some ways it may be.
But similar usurpations of power by the Congress and the President, such as the Alien and Sedition Acts, the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, or the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, were all eventually overturned or struck down and then condemned by history.
My hope is that history can be our guide this time, too. The defense of our borders had not been a cause for concern for nearly a century before the subject really came up again around the time of the turn of the millennium, in Concern with border defense again became an issue after September 11,when a series of terrorist attacks, both in the form of hijacked airliners crashing into buildings and anthrax-laced mail, made people realize that we do have enemies that wish to invade our nation, though not on the scale of an army.
But while each state has its National Guard it can call up to guard the borders, the coordination needed is much more on a national scale, and special units of the regular army or border patrol are better suited for such duty than the Guard.
These interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias.
Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states. This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or non-restrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms.
For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so. The Supreme Court, in permitting the United States to apply a stamp tax to sawed-off shotguns a move, it was argued, that was intended to make such weapons de facto illegalessentially said that if a weapon does not contribute to the maintenance of a militia, and has no use in ensuring the common defense, it can be regulated United States v.The Court held that an amendment of the Constitution is a legislative process, and that an amendment under article is "law" within the meaning of article 13 of the Constitution and therefore, if an amendment "takes away or abridges" a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III, it is void.
In the same year as Aikenhead was hanged, the Government passed An Act Against Atheism and Blasphemy for the Massachusetts Bay Colony, under King William III. Punishments included sitting in the pillory, whipping and having the tongue bored through with a red hot iron, and sitting on the gallows with a rope around the neck, as well as up to six months in gaol.
Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Act of In terms of Proclamation No. 26 of 26 April, , the administration of this Act has been assigned to the . The fourth amendment right is the 4th circuit court in the fourth amendment to what was whether law steve areges kaplan university 1/13/ fourth amendment.
Bumper v. Despite its deep understanding of fourth amendment to be viewed as such as whether and amendments to them. This course is a basic survey of agency law doctrine and policy. Agency law addresses the general circumstances by which one natural or legal person (the agent) may take action on behalf of, and with significant legal consequences for, another (the principal), and the regulation of the relationship between the principal and the agent.
The 13th amendment abolished slavery and the 14th amendment provided that representation would be determined according to the whole number of persons in each state, not by the “three-fifths” of the slaves.