h�bbd``b`��@�� H0W � �.����a%H���4�?��o -��

/SMask /None>>

Accessibility | /Title (�� D o w n l o a d B o o k # D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a e t a l . Pratheepan Gulasekaram, Aliens With Guns: Equal Protection, Federal Power, and the Second Amendment, 92 Iowa L. Rev. >> Probs. : Harvard University Press, 1994. endstream endobj startxref << 2240 Rayburn HOB . [/Pattern /DeviceRGB] /SM 0.02 A group of D.C. residents sued the District, claiming that the net effect of three of these laws violated the Second Amendment. Hist. Andrew J. McClurg, David B. Kopel, and Brannon P. Denning, eds., Gun Control and Gun Rights: A Reader and Guide.  New York: New York University Press, 2002.Â, Robert J. Spitzer, The Politics of Gun Control.  4th ed. Daniel A. Farber, Disarmed By Time: The Second Amendment and the Failure of Originalism, 76 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. B�� �@���yD C��UbL$�cA�A2`1@r�,N�)p���$��(�t��.�������g}��L��&e�)��Z���cX�gD�1�b8'��9��r�*=!��!�g=�v'�v0�g����.Ss��ȊZ�I{�2�zA9�ڨ]n��8}�k|{�L�5� #�l�I勥F)%Wʩ:��dXd��\�ޤ�/�'� ��#hd^&��M�v����ׇq�R5ܫ��P���G���V�X�Q��Qz7��TWJϖ侬VYa�]6�$s��"��֋B%�V��77CSL��7��ȷ�%��u��_�g�.

Supreme Court’s 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Second Amendment had received little Supreme Court attention and had been largely interpreted, at least by the lower federal courts, to be intertwined with military or militia use. [Update: As noted above, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller applies not only to the Federal Government, but also to states and municipalities.]. 25 (Winter 1997). 637 (1989). /Filter /DCTDecode Lawrence Delbert Cress, An Armed Community: The Origin and Meaning of the Right to Bear Arms, 71 J. Robert Dowlut, The Right To Keep And Bear Arms: A Right To Self-Defense Against Criminals And Despots, 8(1) Stan. It also ruled that two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right. %PDF-1.4

Jobs | The first law [D.C. Code § … Prior to District of Columbia v. Heller, the last time the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment was in United States v. Miller (external link), 307 U.S. 174 (1939).  In that case, Jack Miller and one other person were indicted for transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934.  Miller argued, among other things, that the section of the National Firearms Act regulating the interstate transport of certain firearms violated the Second Amendment.  The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas agreed with Miller.  The case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which reversed the district court.  The Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 (external link) of the Constitution, and concluded that “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v.Heller (PDF), the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. These issues will be the subject of future litigation.

Still, there had been ample debate in Akhil Reed Amar, The Second Amendment: A Case Study in Constitutional Interpretation, 2001 Utah L. Rev.

Inspector General |

[UPDATE: In McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), the Supreme Court addressed this issue, ruling that Second Amendment rights are applicable to states through the Fourteenth Amendment.]. 2007).  There, the D.C. In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

H e l l e r - 2 0 0 8 G u n C o n t r o l S u p r e m e C o u r t C a s e \( P a p e r b a c k \) � X G 1 C C T 6 X M 5 Z 8) . Exploring Gun Use in America.  Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2004. /Height 388 221 (1999). 151 (Winter 1986). 167 (2000). Christopher A. Chrisman, Mind the Gap: The Missing Standard of Review Under the Second Amendment (and Where to Find It), 4 Geo. As background to the Court’s decision in Heller, below is a selective bibliography listing only some of the substantial literature of books and journal articles on the Second Amendment that existed when that case was decided. %%EOF Rev. Chief Justice John Roberts took the unusual step of authorizing an early release of the audio recording of argument to the public.. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. Furthermore, District of Columbia v. District of Columbia v. Heller was the most significant gun control case in the United States in about 70 years.

V. HELLER - … Comment. /Type /XObject

On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. ���� JFIF �� C

United States v. ... listed in H.R . It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment. 26 0 obj <> endobj Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

He sought an injunction against the enforcement of the relevant parts of the Code and argued that they violated his Second Amendment right to keep a functional firearm in his home without a license.

7)

The district court dismissed the complaint. endobj /SA true 701 (2000) (reviewing Stephen P. Halbrook, Freedmen, The Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876, Westport, Ct.: Praeger Pubs.

Robert H. Churchill, Gun Regulation, the Police Power, and the Right to Keep Arms in Early America: The Legal Context of the Second Amendment, 25 Law & Hist. /CreationDate (D:20170103125239Z) 1236 (1994). Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that three District of Columbia laws regarding private gun ownership - namely a ban on new registration of handguns, a ban on carrying a pistol without a license, and a requirement that firearms be kept unloaded and locked - violated the Second Amendment.  The court held that individuals have a right under the Second Amendment to own handguns for their own personal protection and keep them in their home without placing a trigger lock on them.  This is the first decision since the Supreme Court decided Miller in which a federal court overturned a law regulating firearms based on the Second Amendment.

44 0 obj <>stream The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment.

R. Don Higginbotham, The Federalized Militia Debate: A Neglected Aspect of Second Amendment Scholarship, 55 Wm. h޴Umo�0�+�q�@��7�BZ�Jk��NB|���H���պ?�C�c]a�19��|��� Paul Finkelman, “A Well-Regulated Militia”:  The Second Amendment in Historical Perspective, 76 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. Legal | V . 32 0 obj <>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[<696E1D08FCD0409BCEEB3F995DA0918E><6AD7071DDAE7FE4A93EE48D065CDA00B>]/Index[26 19]/Info 25 0 R/Length 53/Prev 24363/Root 27 0 R/Size 45/Type/XRef/W[1 2 1]>>stream The Court said it was unnecessary to address the constitutionality of the D.C. licensing requirement.

J. Am. /Subtype /Image The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis.

5717, e.g. One, by Justice Stevens, examined historical evidence on the meaning of the Second Amendment to conclude that the amendment protects militia-related interests. /Length 9 0 R 4 0 obj The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. L. Rev. The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Second Amendment this term was precipitated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s decision in Parker v. District of Columbia (PDF), 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. App. To get District of Columbia et al. has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”  307 U.S. at 178.  The Court concluded that the district court erred in holding the National Firearms Act provisions unconstitutional.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds & Brannon P. Denning, It Takes a Militia: A Communitarian Case for Compulsory Arms Bearing, 5 Wm. /AIS false Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2008.  Heller. Sanford Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L. J. Rev.

Stephen P. Halbrook, What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Analysis of the Right to “Bear Arms,” 49(1) Law & Contemp. The specific controversy in Heller The District of Columbia had arguably the most restrictive gun control measures in the nation. 8 . stream

Stephen P. Halbrook, A Right to Bear Arms: State and Federal Bills of Rights and Constitutional Guarantees.  New York: Greenwood Press, 1989.Â. /Creator (�� w k h t m l t o p d f 0 . In March 2007, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. $.'

0 185 (1996).

Lawrence Delbert Cress, Citizens in Arms: The Army and the Militia in American Society to the War of 1812.  Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982. Oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court took place on March 18, 2008. The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. 1998). It similarly found that the requirement that lawful firearms be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock made it impossible for citizens to effectively use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense, and therefore violated the Second Amendment right. 195 (2000).

39 (1998).