1. Various Cases In re Gault (1967) In re Gault (1967) DC v. Heller (2008) DC v. Heller (2008) Bush v. Gore(2000) Bush v. Gore(2000)

2. In re Gault Gerald Gault, age 15, was taken into police custody with Ronald Lewis, a friend of his, on Monday, June 8, 1964. Neither of Gerald’s parents were home at the time this police action was taken. The police left no notice at the home, and the parents were not notified that Gerald had been taken into custody and brought to a juvenile detention center. Gerald Gault, age 15, was taken into police custody with Ronald Lewis, a friend of his, on Monday, June 8, 1964. Neither of Gerald’s parents were home at the time this police action was taken. The police left no notice at the home, and the parents were not notified that Gerald had been taken into custody and brought to a juvenile detention center. The police action was taken on the basis of a neighbor’s complaint that Gerald had made obscene remarks to her over the telephone. At that time, Gerald was serving a six-month probation for having been with another boy who had stolen a wallet. The police action was taken on the basis of a neighbor’s complaint that Gerald had made obscene remarks to her over the telephone. At that time, Gerald was serving a six-month probation for having been with another boy who had stolen a wallet. The police didn’t tell his parents he was arrested, and the parents were not properly informed of the charges, location/time/reason for court hearings. The police didn’t tell his parents he was arrested, and the parents were not properly informed of the charges, location/time/reason for court hearings.

3. In re Gault Supreme Court ruled that juveniles had the same rights as adults when facing criminal charges, and allowed for more restrictions on law enforcement in some cases. Supreme Court ruled that juveniles had the same rights as adults when facing criminal charges, and allowed for more restrictions on law enforcement in some cases. In Florida, parents have to be contacted before interviewing a juvenile in a Life Felony (armed robbery, sex crime, homicide) In Florida, parents have to be contacted before interviewing a juvenile in a Life Felony (armed robbery, sex crime, homicide) In Florida, (and most states), if a juvenile asks for a parent/guardian before or during an interview, the interview must stop until a parent arrives. In Florida, (and most states), if a juvenile asks for a parent/guardian before or during an interview, the interview must stop until a parent arrives. IF YOU GET ARRESTED, ASK TO SEE YOUR PARENTS BEFORE YOU SPEAK TO A DETECTIVE. LET THEM HELP YOU DECIDE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD SEEK LEGAL COUNSEL. IF YOU GET ARRESTED, ASK TO SEE YOUR PARENTS BEFORE YOU SPEAK TO A DETECTIVE. LET THEM HELP YOU DECIDE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD SEEK LEGAL COUNSEL.

4. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) The Facts In 1976 the District of Columbia, concerned with the high levels of gun-related crime, passed the nation’s most restrictive gun control ordinance. The law essentially banned the private possession of handguns. Shotguns and rifles could be owned, but only if the weapons were registered, kept unloaded, and disassembled or restricted by trigger locks. The law allowed the chief of police, under certain circumstances, to issue a one-year certificate to carry a handgun. In 1976 the District of Columbia, concerned with the high levels of gun-related crime, passed the nation’s most restrictive gun control ordinance. The law essentially banned the private possession of handguns. Shotguns and rifles could be owned, but only if the weapons were registered, kept unloaded, and disassembled or restricted by trigger locks. The law allowed the chief of police, under certain circumstances, to issue a one-year certificate to carry a handgun. Dick Heller, a D.C. police officer, had been granted a license to carry a handgun while on duty providing security at the Federal Judicial Center. Heller applied for permission to own a handgun for self- defense, but he was refused. Claiming that the District’s statute violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms, Heller brought a suit against the city. Dick Heller, a D.C. police officer, had been granted a license to carry a handgun while on duty providing security at the Federal Judicial Center. Heller applied for permission to own a handgun for self- defense, but he was refused. Claiming that the District’s statute violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms, Heller brought a suit against the city.

5. 2 nd 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.

6. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) An Individual Right Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the 5-4 majority opinion, striking down the DC law and declaring a right to own handguns for self-defense in the home. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the 5-4 majority opinion, striking down the DC law and declaring a right to own handguns for self-defense in the home. The Court engaged in both a textual and historical analysis of the 2 nd Amendment. The Court engaged in both a textual and historical analysis of the 2 nd Amendment. Scalia explained: Scalia explained: the “right of the people” means an individual right as it is used elsewhere in the Constitution; the “right of the people” means an individual right as it is used elsewhere in the Constitution; “arms” applies “to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity” hence, non-military weapons are protected; “arms” applies “to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity” hence, non-military weapons are protected; “to keep arms” means “to retain… to have in custody… to hold; to retain in one’s power or possession” “to keep arms” means “to retain… to have in custody… to hold; to retain in one’s power or possession” “bear” means to “carry” for a purpose – confrontation. “bear” means to “carry” for a purpose – confrontation. Scalia concluded that in an era when there was no standing U.S. Army, everyone understood the right to keep and bear arms as an individual one in case a militia was necessary to fight oppressors if order broke down. Scalia concluded that in an era when there was no standing U.S. Army, everyone understood the right to keep and bear arms as an individual one in case a militia was necessary to fight oppressors if order broke down. “Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. “Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.

7. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote the dissent. Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote the dissent. He explained that the 2 nd Amendment was passed as a response to fears that “Congress would disarm state militias and create a national standing army.” Stevens said that it has nothing to do with regulating private civilian use of firearms and does not enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution. He explained that the 2 nd Amendment was passed as a response to fears that “Congress would disarm state militias and create a national standing army.” Stevens said that it has nothing to do with regulating private civilian use of firearms and does not enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution. Hence, the right to keep and bear arms is for military purposes. Congress may regulate civilian use. Hence, the right to keep and bear arms is for military purposes. Congress may regulate civilian use. “Even if the textual and historical arguments on both sides of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law....” “Even if the textual and historical arguments on both sides of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law....” “Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well- regulated militia. The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding.” (emphasis added by me) “Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well- regulated militia. The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding.” (emphasis added by me)

8. McDonald v. Chicago (2010) In McDonald v. Chicago (2010) the Court ruled 5-3 that the 2 nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense applies to state and local governments as well as the federal government. Hence Chicago’s local gun ban was unconstitutional. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010) the Court ruled 5-3 that the 2 nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense applies to state and local governments as well as the federal government. Hence Chicago’s local gun ban was unconstitutional. Writing for four justices, Justice Samuel Alito held that the 2 nd Amendment was incorporated via the 14 th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Writing for four justices, Justice Samuel Alito held that the 2 nd Amendment was incorporated via the 14 th Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

9. Bush v. Gore Bush won the State by less than 2,000 votes, initially. Bush won the State by less than 2,000 votes, initially. Gore asked for recount of computer ballots which had not been counted because the ballots were not readable (over 5,000 in Palm Beach County alone…not to mention the statistically high number of people who voted for the Reform Party candidate, Pat Buchanan). Gore asked for recount of computer ballots which had not been counted because the ballots were not readable (over 5,000 in Palm Beach County alone…not to mention the statistically high number of people who voted for the Reform Party candidate, Pat Buchanan).

10. Issues with the 2000 Election Ballot counting/design processes in several counties in Florida Ballot counting/design processes in several counties in Florida Media involvement with “calling” the winner. (This was not decided by the court, but the media’s mistake in this election caused them to change the way they cover and call elections). Media involvement with “calling” the winner. (This was not decided by the court, but the media’s mistake in this election caused them to change the way they cover and call elections).

11. Bush v. Gore (2000)

12. Media Issues Due to exit polling, the Media felt that Al Gore would win Florida and said so early on. Due to exit polling, the Media felt that Al Gore would win Florida and said so early on. Do you think that could have impacted the election? Why or Why not? Do you think that could have impacted the election? Why or Why not?

14. Opinion of the Court Justice John Paul Stevens: “Preventing the recount from being completed will inevitably cast a doubt upon the legitimacy of the election.” “Preventing the recount from being completed will inevitably cast a doubt upon the legitimacy of the election.”

15. Final Official Results 2,912,790 votes 2,912,253 votes 2,912,253 votes Difference in votes: 537 Difference in votes: 537 Total votes cast: 5,825,043 Total votes cast: 5,825,043 Percentage:.000092% Percentage:.000092%

16. Bush v. Gore Ruling In a 5-4 ruling (split straight down party lines), the Court halted the recount giving the election to Bush. In a 5-4 ruling (split straight down party lines), the Court halted the recount giving the election to Bush.

17. Opinion of the Court Through its ruling in Bush v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ended the 2000 presidential election giving the presidency to Bush. At issue was whether the “undervotes” in Florida – ballots on which counting machines had detected no vote for president – would be tabulated by hand. Florida’s top court had ordered a statewide manual recount, but the U.S. Supreme Court by a narrow 5 – 4 margin and issued a rare emergency order halting the action. Asked that this ruling not be added to “precedent” and that it applied to this case only.