Second amendment current articles?
Can you help me find some current issues dealing w/ the second amendment? Thanks!
- tomLv 61 decade agoFavorite Answer
No, don't go to that website, it is obviously going to be biased.
The cases you want are these
UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
The only decent case dealing with the Second Amendment.
United States v. Emerson , 270 F.3d 203, 218-21 (5th Cir. 2001)
Completely biased, but shows the views of conservative federal court justices
Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983).
Completely biased again, but shows the views of liberal judges.
Shelly Parker V. the District of Columbia (2007) (in the DC federal court area, all of these can be found on findlaw.com)
WIll go before the supreme court in march i believe. Shows basically two sides who both have NO IDEA of what the second amendment is about, qould be amusing if it was not so damn serious.
Basically there are three second amendments. Two of which you will find, the emerson view held by shelly parker et al. which says that bearing arms means carrying arms, so an individual has the right to keep a gun and to carry it around with themselves whenever they want.
You have the other side, what DC wanted to say that keeping and bear arms are for the militia, and you have to be in the militia to keep and bear arms, and as the militia doesn't exist, then no one has the RKBA.
Then you have the truth. The right to keep arms protects an individual's keeping of guns. But that is all, an individual may own guns, some guns can be banned, as long as individuals are able to have guns that could be used in the militia.
The bearing of arms is the right to be in the militia, a non-militia person can own guns, and can also join the militia (not the national guard, and most people are in the militia at the moment anyway, there is the unorganised militia and the organised militia, and everyone is in the unorganised, i can't remember exactly the name of the act which made it this way)
The evidence for this view is there, looking at what the founding fathers said, and what actually exists, ie if bearing means carrying in the 2A, then carry and conceal laws forcing people to have permits to do so are unconstitutional, but it isn't, and the supreme court has said so.
I have written other answers which explain the 2A in more depth with evidence to back this up if that is what you require.Source(s): www.findlaw.com