Mickale J. Massey Mr. Fernandez Practical Law 1st The Right to Bear Arms Mickale J. Massey Mr. Fernandez Practical Law 1st

2 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. Proposed: 9/25/1789 Ratified: 12/15/1791

History King Alfred the Great made a requirement that all men should be defend the country when called to Common Law: Required that every man arm himself the best he could and prepare for an attack

Cases

Presser vs Illinois (1886) Plaintiff: Herman Presser Defendant: State of Illinois Summary: Presser was part of a local militia riding around on horseback with firearms and a sword. Presser was found guilty because he and the group were not allowed to do so. Supreme Court Decision: The court ruled in favor of Presser

Sonzinsky vs United States Plaintiff: United States Defendant: Sonzinsky Summary: Sonzinsky an arms dealer failed to pay his $200 annual tax, $500 for imports, and $200 tax on each transfer of firearm according to the National Firearms Act. Sonzinsky argued that the act was unconstitutional. Supreme Court Decision: Ruled in Favor of the Plaintiff

Pritz vs United States (1997) Plaintiff: Jay Pritz Defendant: United Stated Summary: Jay Priz and Richard Mack that the Brady Bill was unconstitutional. Supreme Court Decision: Ruled in favor of Pritz

Pena vs Lindley (current) Plaintiff: Ivan Pena Defendant: Wilfredo Cid Summary: Ivan Pena bought a firearm that is not registered on California's Handgun Roster Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: Current Case

United States vs Cruikshank (1876) This case took place Colfax, Louisiana in which a white mob murdered 2 African American who were trying to vote. This case is said the be one of worst decisions made by the Supreme Court. U.S Attorney General J.R Beckwith brought this case to the Supreme Court. The Defendants had to be tried in Federal Court, because Louisiana did not have laws to protect blacks. Cruikshank was convicted in Louisiana's Federal Court, however appealed it at the Supreme Court

United States vs Cruikshank (1876) The Civil War and 2nd Amendment were the laws under discussion for this case. The Supreme Court ruled in favored of Cruikshank, because state laws are responsible for protecting citizens from each other.

Significance This case was argued that it wasn’t about race, however this case was after the Civil War and blacks were just now receiving rights and in the south they did not recognize black rights or as people.

United States vs Miller (1939) In 1939 Jack Miller and a friend transported a sawed off 12 gauge shot gun. Miller was arrested and taken to court and he argued that the 2nd amendment protected. The district court dismissed Miller. Supreme Court took this case and analyzed this case in depth. With an 8 to 1 verdict the Supreme Court decided that a sawed of 12 gauge shot gun could not and would not be used in a well regulated militia.

Muscarello vs United Stated Muscarello was caught with marijuana in his truck at the time, when they searched his car they found a gun in his trunk’s glove compartment locked away. Muscarello argued that he was not actually carrying the gun at the time of his arrest. He appealed his arrest all the way to the Supreme Court The Supreme Court ruled against Muscarello in a 5-4 descision Majority Opinion stated that carrying a firearm is willing and knowingly having a firearm with you Dissenting Opinion stated that carrying a firearm means that it is ready to use

Significance Today in Tennessee is you have a firearm on you the gun and the ammunition must separate form each other and locked away, this is the only way you can have a registered gun with you id you do not have a permit to carry

District of Columbia vs Heller (2008) Dick Heller was a police officer authorized to do to carry a firearm, he registered for a one year license to keep a firearm at home and got denied. He appealed the court because he said that it violated his 2nd amendment D.C requires that for a gun to be in your home it needs to be disarmed, unloaded, and trigger locked. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Heller in a close 5-4 decisions Majority Opinion stressed the opinion that if the gun is disarmed it takes away from the fact of the gun being for self defense Dissent Opinion stated that the 2nd amendment does not require that the firearm is used for self defense

McDonald vs Chicago (2010) Otis McDonald sued the city of Chicago the day the Heller case was announced, the city of Chicago much like the District of Columbia that required firearms at home to be trigger locked and unloaded. McDonald and numerous other felt that this violated his 2nd amendment right 14th and 2nd amendment we used in this case Supreme Court verdict was in favor of Otis McDonald Majority Decision stated the fact that the 2nd amendment is not excluded to just to regulation of a militia but for the protection of those who keep it in their homes.

Works Cited "District of Columbia v. Heller." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Sep 27, 2016. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290  "Lewis v. United States." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Sep 27, 2016. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1995/95-6465  "Printz v. United States." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Sep 27, 2016. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1996/95-1478  "Muscarello v. United States." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Sep 27, 2016. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1997/96-1654#!  "United States v. Miller." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Sep 27, 2016. https:// www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/307us174 Brooks, Chad. “ The Second Amendment & The Right to Bear Arms.” Live Science. 22 January 2013. http://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html “The British Constitution and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Defense.” The Libertarian Alliance Blog. 22 December 2014. https://thelibertarianalliance.com/2014/12/22/the-british-constitution-and-the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-for-defence/ Gans, David H. “This Day in Supreme Court History: United States v. Cruikshank.” Constitutional Accountability Center. 27 March 2009. http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/580