United States Vs. Miller Case Study

A homicide occurred at the defendant’s filling station. At the filling station the deceased was previously drinking and was sweet talking the defendant’s wife in a whispering conversation. The deceased was asked to leave the building, yet the defendant order him more than once. The deceased would not leave the filling station. While, the deceased had alcohol in his system, they took off their hat and slammed it on the counter. The deceased uttered some very foul words to the defendant. In the other hand, the deceased picked up a hammer. Unfortunately, the defendant fired his gun because he thought the deceased was going to hit him or kill him with

Since the begining of America, the Founding Fathers wrote the strong-standing Bill of Rights with amendments to protect the country that had just recently won their freedom, but one amendment has been the top theme of controversies for centuries. Gun laws offend the Bill of Rights in so many ways and they prove ineffective. Gun Laws are relevant due to thousands of deaths and self-protection. The argument goes on but without guns there is militia, one of the main intents of the Second Amendment. These simple rules can reduce deaths, proven by millions of influential people. Gun laws have their positives and negatives, but the debate isn 't resolved yet.

“Elastic Clause”. This clause is also often referred to as the “necessary and proper” or the “sweeping” clause. It can be found in article 1, section 8 of the constitution, clause 18. The “elastic clause” puts forward that Congress has the power to pass any law that they have deemed to be both necessary and proper to implement the powers that have already been delegated to the Congress. (U.S Const., art. I, §8). In essence, this clause offers a way for the US Congress to “achieve its’ constitutional mandated ends”(The Heritage Foundation, 2011). The purpose of this clause to allow the organisation of the government, while also helping to effectuate the power of Congress, and in doing so it introduces a great deal of flexibility to the constitution.

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

On May 21, 1924 Bobby Franks is abducted, and stabbed in the head several times with a chisel. It is the result of seven months of planning a “perfect crime” by nineteen year old Nathan Leopold and eighteen year old Richard Loeb (Leopold and Loeb). These young men were represented in court by Mr. Clarence Darrow, a distinguished attorney known for only losing one out of over a hundred death penalty cases (Clarence Darrow). Fittingly, Leopold and Loeb were facing capital punishment. In Darrow’s closing argument he gives his famed “A Plea for Mercy” to the judge. This plea not only acted as a conclusion to his defense, but it also acted as an introduction the eradication of the death penalty. Darrow uses a mix of ethos, pathos, logos, and other rhetorical devices to impose a merciful effect on his audience in hopes to reduce his clients punishment and the use of capital punishment.

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." Some reasons why this amendment was made are that the framers wanted adults to know how to use a weapon and to be ready to use a weapon if they were attacked. During this time, the British troops were still attempting to overtake the new land, one of the ways they did this was by attempting to take the people’s guns. There was still reason to believe that British would still attack the new country and the United States did not have a real army, so any military action needed to be responded to by

The right to bear arms has been a controversial issue ever since James Madison established it as the second amendment of the constitution. 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” (US Const. amend. II). Those in favor of the second amendment, believe that arms are used for protection, dangerous situations, and sports. 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 Supreme Court ruled that to let Congress make that a law you would have

The right to bear arms has been a controversial issue ever since James Madison established it as the second amendment of the constitution. 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” (US Const. amend. II). Those in favor of the second amendment, believe that arms are used for protection, dangerous situations, and sports. 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.

I found the outcome of this case to be interesting and am generally supportive of the majority opinion. One key aspect to remember is that for a right to be incorporated it must be so essential to fundamental principles of ordered liberty and justice that it can become protected from state and federal action. In my mind, I do not see how any patriotic American could not understand how the 2nd Amendment applies to these principles. This is proven by the history and birth of America. “The lessons that we learn are written on the tombstones of others” (Reid

The articles I chose to compare and contrast were, “Scrutinizing the Second Amendment” by Adam Winkler and “Nothing to debate: Second Amendment, legal gun in my purse saved our lives” by Lynne Russell. While there was not much to compare, aside from the articles both relating to the Second Amendment, it was quite obvious that one article was strictly opinionated, while the other was a solid analysis.

There is a glass of water filled halfway with water sitting on a table. Is the glass half empty or half full? Many people have heard this divided interpretation of a glass of water before and have differing views of whether it is half full or half empty. Yes, a glass of water is not a huge issue the country is facing, however, there is another issue this country is facing currently with the same principle that is escalating with time. Everyone learned in school about the bill of rights and about the amendments of the Constitution, which states every United States citizen’s basic human rights. Recently, the second amendment, the right to bear arms, has been under intense scrutiny and misinterpretation of this amendment is a growing problem spreading

The second amendment is probably the most controversial amendment in the Bill of Rights. The second amendment is stated in the Bill of Rights as, “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”) This could mean that you have the right to possess a small gun for self-defence purposes only, but the real meaning is a very controversial argument. Focusing on this amendment is important because it is a very disputed amendment still debated today. There have been many cases where the Supreme Court has had to make a decision, and most of the time it is an almost split decision.

The big issue of gun control in the United States, is that many people believe that it takes away the 2nd Amendment rights, which is the right to bear arms. Citizens of the United States are promised the the right to bear arms in the Constitution, and by applying gun control laws takes away that same right. Crime is high enough in cities with very few laws pertaining to gun control, but taking guns away from people who are registered with license will not solve the problem either. Placing more limitations on gun owners, particularly responsible gun owners, will not reduce gun violence. Although there are rules and regulations already in place there still is a lot of crime occurring, because laws on gun

The Second Amendment says, “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 rights has become the subject of intense political, social, and cultural battles for much of the last century. The pro-gun right side has asserted that the right to arms was absolute, and that any gun control laws infringed that right (Kopel, 2013). This right has been supported by the Supreme Court who has reinforced what has become the American consensus that the Second Amendment allows the right to keep and bear arms, especially for self-defense, and that it is a fundamental individual