Amendment+2+(2)

Period 2 (2009) 

[]

It says, __“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free Sate, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”__
 * The Second amendment is from the Bill of Rights.

That all means, that a good running group of soldiers or individual people of the United States, is needed to protect our free country. The amendment allows some weapon rights but they can only be used to protect yourself, but laws may not be broken. Like, gun restrictions, registration for the gun, and also a gun permit in order to carry the gun.
 * There are rules to owning a weapon or gun.

If there were not rules to protecting a person with a firearm, then there could be deadly consequences.

Such as misuse of the firearm. There was a court case known as Miller vs. Texas,
 * In the Supreme Court rulings,

Mr. Miller shot a police officer by using an unlicensed firearm, and claimed his second amendment rights were broken. His conviction was overturned by the Supreme court and he was convicted and put in jail.

Another case called Lewis Vs. Us,

The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 forbids the possession of firearms by a convicted felon. Mr. Lewis, was convicted of a felony in a 1961 state court for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. In 1977, Lewis was charged with receiving and possessing a firearm violating of the crime control and safe streets act. Lewis claimed his second amendment rights were violated. The court upheld Lewis' conviction.


 * The 2nd amendment still allows people of the US to own guns, and use them only to protect them, but they may not break laws. Like using the gun for other reason then protecting yourself from harm, such as hurting another person.

 __**Research**__

__1791 (amendment was established..)__From the book- "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.__" Well-regulated- The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.([])

Militia-   Free state-**//–noun//**
 * < **2.** ||< a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. ||
 * < **1.** ||< //U.S. History// . (before the Civil War) a state in which slavery was prohibited. ||

Arms-
 * < **4.** ||< to equip with weapons: //to arm the troops.// ||


 * < **9.** ||< to prepare for action; make fit; ready ||

Infringe-**1.** break, disobey. <span style="color: #333333; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> ([]) - 2nd amendment- Right to Bare Arms. The right to own and have guns. The second amendment does not apply to state laws.

//**Supreme court cases**

In //Miller v. Texas//, 153 [|U.S.] [|535] (1894), Franklin Miller was convicted and sentenced to be executed for shooting a police officer to death using an unlicensed handgun, in violation of Texas law. Mr. Miller sought to have his conviction overturned on the grounds that his Second Amendment rights were violated and that the Bill of Rights should be incorporated to state law. The Supreme Court ruled in line with //Presser// and //Cruikshank// that __the Second Amendment did not apply to state laws__ such as the Texas law for which Mr. Miller has been convicted.
 * Miller v. Texas**//

Title VII of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 forbids the possession of firearms by a convicted felon. Lewis, the petitioner, was convicted of a felony in a 1961 state court "for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor". In 1977, in Virginia, Lewis was charged with receiving and possessing a firearm in violation of the above act. Lewis, claimed his latest conviction violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because he had no counsel present during his 1961 trial. The court upheld Lewis' conviction, holding:
 * Lewis v. U.S. (1980)**

(a)...the fact that there are remedies available to a convicted felon - removal of the firearm disability by a qualifying pardon or the Secretary of the Treasury's consent, as specified in the Act, or a challenge to the prior conviction in an appropriate court proceeding - suggests that Congress intended that the defendant clear his status before obtaining a firearm, thereby fulfilling Congress' purpose to keep firearms away from persons classified as potentially irresponsible and dangerous. (b) The firearm regulatory scheme at issue here is consonant with the concept of equal protection embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, since Congress could rationally conclude that any felony conviction, even an allegedly invalid one, is a sufficient basis on which to prohibit the possession of a firearm. And use of an uncounseled felony conviction as the basis for imposing a civil firearms disability, enforceable by criminal sanction, is not inconsistent with Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109; United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443; and Loper v. Beto, 405 U.S. 473.

In a footnote the court stated: These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to [445 U.S. 55, 66] the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia").

Note, the Court restated the //Miller// court's focus on the type of firearm. The Court also commented it was customary to deny convicted felons the right to vote, hold union office, or practice medicine. Complete text of [|//Lewis v. U.S.//, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)].

//**Robertson v. Baldwin**//
In // Robertson v. Baldwin //, 165(1897)  , the Court stated that laws regulating concealed arms did not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, and thus were not a violation of the Second Amendment. Specifically, the Supreme Court stated: “The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;..." <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_amendment

[]

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">

The Supreme Court last looked at the Second Amendment nearly 70 years ago in United States v. Miller, a 1939 decision that suggested, without explicitly deciding, that the right should be understood in connection with service in a militia. The Second Amendment provides: “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.” The justices chose their own wording for what they want to decide in the new case, District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290. The question they posed is whether the provisions of the statute “violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.” The court’s choice of words is almost never inadvertent, and its use of the phrase “state-regulated militia” was somewhat curious. The District of Columbia, of course, is not a state, and one of the arguments its lawyers are making in their appeal is that the Second Amendment simply does not apply to “legislation enacted exclusively for the District of Columbia.” []

[]
 * __Freedoms of 2nd Amendment for citizens__**

__(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither__ //__United States__// __v.__ //__Cruikshank__//__, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor__ //__Presser__// __v.__ //__Illinois__//__, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation.__ //__United States__// __v.__ //__Miller__//__, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia,__ //__i.e.__//__, those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.__

3 Cite as: 554 U. S. __ (2008) Syllabus prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in thehome be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossiblefor citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense andis hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfyhis prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun
 * 1) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. // Miller’ // s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
 * 2) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this

In the future, we think that this Amendment will be more specific but more then likely stay the same. There might be more restrictions on it though.