The last standard set forth is one in which the court asserts the right to concealed carry does not extend beyond the home and therefore good cause statutes do not implicate Second Amendment protections. The ninth circuit and third circuit courts follow this standard. In Peruta, the court held that an individual of the general public does not have the right to carry a concealed weapon outside the home under the 2nd amendment. Id. at 924. Since the Second Amendment offers no protections for the concealed carrying of weapons, states can place any restrictions without violating the amendment. This includes the highly debated “good cause” provision enacted by California. Id. at 939. In Drake, the court assumed that the Second Amendment did not give individuals …show more content…
Id. at 434. Therefore, it regulates conduct that is not within the scope of the Second Amendment. Id. at 434. Furthermore, it held that even if it was not presumptively constitutional, it would withstand intermediate scrutiny. Id. at 435. The court felt that the justifiable need clause …show more content…
Hamilton’s case, we notice that if the court deems the “good cause” law a presumptively constitutional statute she will have no Second Amendment protection afforded to her. Furthermore, if this case is followed as precedent the court may deem that the “good cause” requirement may pass the appropriate level of scrutiny. The court may search for a clear and substantial government interest that justifies the good cause requirement as the court did in Drake. In addition, the court may rule that the Second Amendment does not apply to concealed carry outside of the home, thereby dissolving any argument that Ms. Hamilton could produce. If such is done, she may not have a successful cause of action under the precedent set in this
Heller (2008) District of Columbia made it illegal to own a firearm without a license and if you had one it must be unloaded and have a trigger lock. Dick Heller was a special police officer who wanted to keep gun in his home. The district of columbia denied him when he applied for a license so he sued the district of Columbia saying this violated his second amendment. Verdict: 5-4 decision for Heller, majority given by Antonin Scalia.they argued that banning the registration for firearms within the household violates the second amendment. McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
Peruta argued the Second Amendment requires that a person be allowed to carry a weapon “that is immediately capable of being used for its intended purpose” (Peruta v. County of San
C. Precedent The law is unconstitutional not only due to the meaning of the text itself, but also from many cases of precedent. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) have already established the importance of the Second Amendment, but there are other cases as well that back up the courts decision claiming the ban on carrying a concealed weapon is unconstitutional. In Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Litt. 90, (KY 1822), established that the right to bear arms was for defense against themselves and the state. This case consisted of a man carrying a concealed weapon in his cane and it is similar to the one in which we face today.
Through court cases like District of Columbia v. Heller, the Second Amendment was clarified to extend the right to possess firearms for “traditionally lawful purposes” from simply militia related services. McDonald v. Chicago further expanded the application of the Second Amendment by holding that it was applicable to states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, these two cases were tied together as the Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller that the right to self-defense was a “fundamental” and “deeply rooted” right which in turn allowed the Supreme Court to rule that based on the 14th Amendment and the precedent established in the Heller case that the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee of the right to bear arms was applicable to states for the purpose of self-defense. There are three
The topic of gun control and firearm regulation has been subject to heated debate for a long while. Both sides have potent arguments, however the core of this issue ultimately boils down to the constitution itself. More specifically the second amendment. This argument quickly becomes quite complicated because gun control and firearm regulation concerns not only the right of citizens, but more importantly the safety of citizens. The second amendment helps to guarantee an imperative right belonging to all citizens.
And there are so many reasons why. 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. This is the second amendment of the United States Constitution which was written in 1791 and has been debated ever since. Conceal and carry is the practice of carrying a weapon in
Parents feel that guns should be allowed on campus so that students and staff can protect themselves in dangerous situations and also by being an American citizen it is one of our Constitutional rights. Guns should be allowed on college campuses because they provide better safety for students, the second amendment, and when requirements for carrying a weapon are in place. The Second Amendment is the right to bear all arms. “Activities for conceal and carry laws on college and university campuses read the Second Amendment as an overarching right to have weapons, regardless of location.”
POW!! Imagine you just saved your family from a slum trying to take what you worked for Tough right? Well that can all change now. A concealed carry pistol can define, your life and death. Here's why,concealed carry should be for american citizens and why it should be legal for anyone without any restriction and permits, Also why concealed carry helps with crime and protects thousands of americans.
The right to bear arms has been a controversial issue ever since James Madison established it as the second amendment of the constitution. The second amendment states, “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” (US Const. amend. II). Those in favor of the second amendment, believe that arms are used for protection, dangerous situations, and sports.
The Second Amendment says, “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.” Gun rights has become the subject of intense political, social, and cultural battles for much of the last century. The pro-gun right side has asserted that the right to arms was absolute, and that any gun control laws infringed that right (Kopel, 2013). This right has been supported by the Supreme Court who has reinforced what has become the American consensus that the Second Amendment allows the right to keep and bear arms, especially for self-defense, and that it is a fundamental individual
The Second Amendment states that one has the right to bear arms. This right can be taken away from one when they do some sort of crime that goes against this and gets their right taken away from them. Around 3 million americans carry a gun with they all the time with a concealed weapons permit. That number is 20% out of the 15 million americans that have a concealed weapons permit. We should not get rid of the right to carry a concealed weapon though there are exceptions depending on the person and their history.
The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights is the right to bear arms, which gives American citizens a constitutional right to own and purchase guns. It states, "A well-regulated
According to the Second 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.” The Second Amendment specifically states that “the right of the people to keep
Since the begining of America, the Founding Fathers wrote the strong-standing Bill of Rights with amendments to protect the country that had just recently won their freedom, but one amendment has been the top theme of controversies for centuries. Gun laws offend the Bill of Rights in so many ways and they prove ineffective. Gun Laws are relevant due to thousands of deaths and self-protection. The argument goes on but without guns there is militia, one of the main intents of the Second Amendment. These simple rules can reduce deaths, proven by millions of influential people.
Nevertheless, carrying a concealed gun should not be prohibited from certain places especially with everything going on in society today. The right to carry a concealed gun provides a sense of security, some type of protection if something were to happen. Anything can happen in the blank of an eye and having a concealed gun allows one to feel safe. The law bans concealed weapons carry in a lot of places that a lot of mass shootings occurred at.