criminal justice1

jc334

criminaljustice.pptx

Home >Science homework help >criminal justice1

The Second Amendment: The Gun Control Controversy

Chapter 6

Section II: The Guarantees of the Constitution: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

‹#›

Learning Objectives (slide 1 of 2)

LO1: Identify who was, historically, included in the militia and what was required of them.

LO2: Summarize the opposing interpretations of the Second Amendment that have clashed over the years.

LO3: Explain the significance of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

‹#›

Learning Objectives (slide 2 of 2)

LO4: Understand the significance of McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

LO5: Describe the provisions of the Brady Act.

LO6: Outline what the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) allows and what its three goals are.

‹#›

Introduction

The 2nd Amendment starts out stating “A well regulated militia…”

What is a militia?

It is an armed group of citizens who defend their community as emergencies arise.

‹#›

Historical Background

A central controversy over the 2nd Amendment is whether people have a right to bear arms as individuals, rather than only as part of a militia.

In 1794, the militia was made up of free male citizens, armed with muskets, bayonets, and rifles.

Today, the militia is considered to consist of the National Guard units in every state.

Armed with government-supplied and owned sophisticated weaponry.

Also, the United States has a standing army, mooting the need for a widespread armed citizenry on call.

‹#›

LO1: Identify who was, historically, included in the militia and what was required of them.

The Debate: Interpreting the Second Amendment (slide 1 of 6)

Modern–Day Militias in the United States

1992- Ruby Ridge

1993- the Branch Davidians

1996- “Freemen”

Research shows an increasing amount of heavily armed militia groups.

The “Patriot” movement conducts paramilitary training and demonizes the federal government.

Some of these groups are considered domestic terrorist threats.

‹#›

The Debate: Interpreting the Second Amendment (slide 2 of 6)

Some people feel the government has become too powerful and that individuals need to reclaim that power with firearms.

Others are more concerned about the mass shootings at Newtown, Columbine, Aurora, Tucson, & Virginia Tech.

There are two opposing legal interpretations of the 2nd Amendment:

Does the amendment guarantee individual’s right to keep and bear arms?

Does it guarantee the states freedom from federal government infringement on this right?

‹#›

LO2: Summarize the opposing interpretations of the Second Amendment that have clashed over the years.

The Debate: Interpreting the Second Amendment (slide 3 of 6)

The phrasing (clauses) of the 2nd Amendment into two parts is what causes the biggest debate.

Operative clause

Identifies that action to be taken or prohibited

Prefactory clause

Announces a purpose, but does not necessarily restrict the operative clause.

The debate surrounding the 2nd Amendment centers around the prefactory clause and the intentions of the founding fathers.

‹#›

The Debate: Interpreting the Second Amendment (slide 4 of 6)

Individual Rights

Proponents of “the right to bear arms” endorse an individual rights interpretation that would guarantee that right to all citizens.

These proponents see the amendment as primarily guaranteeing the right of the people, not the states.

They also claim that the framers of the constitution intended to preserve individual rights above state rights.

The courts throughout history have consistently rejected the individual rights view in favor of the state’s rights interpretation.

‹#›

The Debate: Interpreting the Second Amendment (slide 5 of 6)

States’ rights

Those favoring the state’s rights interpretation see the 2nd Amendment as protecting and modifying Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Commerce Clause – provides the legal foundation for much of the federal government’s regulatory authority.

Grants Congress the power “to provide for the calling forth of the Militia to execute the laws of the Union.”

The purpose of the amendment is obviously to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces.”

‹#›

The Debate: Interpreting the Second Amendment (slide 6 of 6)

States’ rights

Proponents claim that the 2nd Amendment was adopted with the primary purpose of preserving the state militia.

The courts have consistently interpreted the 2nd Amendment as allowing states to regulate private gun ownership.

The amendment preserves the state’s power to defend against foreign and domestic enemies, and it also reduces the need for a large standing army.

‹#›

Case Law Regarding the Second Amendment (slide 1 of 3)

The National Firearms Act of 1934 was established because the federal government made an effort to regulate the possession of firearms.

This act was the first in federal regulation.

United States v. Miller (1939)

The Supreme Court recognized a state right rather than an individual right to bear arms.

This case indicates that the amendment protects only arms that bear some relation to preserving the militia.

‹#›

Case Law Regarding the Second Amendment (slide 2 of 3)

A Shift in Interpretation: The Heller Decision

Since the Miller case in 1939, there have been more than thirty cases involving the 2nd Amendment.

In every case, except one, the courts have held that the amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms only in connection with a state militia.

U.S. v. Emerson (1999)

A district court went against all federal court precedent and restored a domestic abuser’s firearms.

Claimed the 2nd Amendment guaranteed the individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

‹#›

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Issues: Is the Second Amendment violated by a provision of the D.C. code that bans the possession of functional handguns in the home?

Holding: Yes. The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a handgun in one’s home and use it for traditionally lawful purposes, regardless of any connection to the militia.

‹#›

Opinion at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html.

LO3: Explain the significance of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

Case Law Regarding the Second Amendment (slide 3 of 3)

The Second Amendment was unincorporated until 2010.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

The City of Chicago banned almost all handgun possession by private individuals.

Mr. McDonald argued that this left him vulnerable to criminals.

The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.

‹#›

LO4: Understand the significance of McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

Variation in State and Local Gun Laws (slide 1 of 2)

States retain the right to impose stricter regulations related to firearms than those required by the federal government.

How do states differ?

Concealed Carry Laws

Castle Laws

Restrictions on Types of Firearms

‹#›

United States v. Lopez , 514 U.S. 549 (1995)

Issues: The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (GFSZA) made it unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that he knew or had reasonable cause to believe was a school zone. Does the GFSZA exceed Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause?

Holding: The Supreme Court struck down the GFSZA. The possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

‹#›

Opinion at

Variation in State and Local Gun Laws (slide 2 of 2)

Restrictions

Some weapons, such as fully automatic machine guns or those altered to be more conducive to criminal activity, such as sawed-off shotguns, have always been illegal for most people to own.

What exactly constitutes a weapon or firearm has not been easily defined.

‹#›

Federal Regulation and the Second Amendment (slide 1 of 5)

Congress, using its broad authority to regulate interstate commerce, has enacted some federal gun control.

In 1938, the Federal Firearms Act was passed.

Required dealers shipping firearms across state lines and importers to be licensed by the federal government.

In 1967, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Street Act was passed.

Made possession of firearms by convicted felons unlawful.

In 1968, the Gun Control Act was passed.

Banned federal licensees from selling firearms to prohibited persons.

Under indictment for or convicted of a felony

A fugitive

A drug user

‹#›

Federal Regulation and the Second Amendment (slide 2 of 5)

The Brady Act

On November 30, 1993, President Clinton signed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

Contained the interim provision of a mandatory five-day waiting period on all handgun purchases.

This provision was phased out in 1998 with the permanent provision of an instant, computerized criminal background check on all handgun purchasers, except those made at gun shows.

Some states still impose a waiting period on firearms purchases.

‹#›

LO5: Describe the provisions of the Brady Act.

Federal Regulation and the Second Amendment (slide 3 of 5)

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

Banned the manufacture of nineteen different semiautomatic guns with multiple assault-weapon features.

Prohibits transfer to or possession of handguns and ammunition by juveniles.

Prohibits possession of firearms by people who have committed domestic abuse.

Provides stiffer penalties for criminals who use firearms to commit federal crimes.

Expired with a Sunset Clause, a set ending time for legislation that is not renewed to prevent old law from remaining on the books.

‹#›

Federal Regulation and the Second Amendment (slide 4 of 5)

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act

Allows qualified off-duty and retired officers to carry concealed weapons throughout the country, regardless of state or local firearms restrictions.

Goals

To establish equality between local LEOs and their federal counterparts who already carry nationwide.

To create an unpaid homeland security force to help protect the nation.

To allow qualified current and retired LEOs the means to defend themselves and their families.

‹#›

LO6: Outline what the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) allows and what its three goals are.

Federal Regulation and the Second Amendment (slide 5 of 5)

Other proposed federal legislation

Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act

Went nowhere in 2009 and was reintroduced in 2015

Aims to prohibit those who are on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005

Prohibited lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers for damages resulting from use of their products.

Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009

‹#›

Guns, Crime, and Violence

Firearm violence accounted for roughly 70 percent of all homicides from 1993 to 2011

Law enforcement officers are killed by civilians

Guns are used in many crimes

‹#›

The Current Gun Control Debate (slide 1 of 2)

In Opposition to Gun Control:

The common argument about gun control is the claim that such laws will only put guns where they do not belong—in criminal’s hands.

The founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment to protect citizen’s right to defend themselves against oppression.

When people are disarmed, government tyranny and oppression thrive.

‹#›

The Current Gun Control Debate (slide 2 of 2)

In Support of Gun Control:

Advocates refer to this issue as “crime control” not “gun control.”

History shows that the Second Amendment was written to protect colonists from England’s King George III’s military forces and contains nothing that could be constructed today as prohibiting gun control.

Advocates criticize the ability of some to circumvent the law.

‹#›

Finding Common Ground—Is a Compromise Possible?

Gun control by the states is not constitutionally prohibited.

Legislation by the federal government is not prohibited.

It looks like the courts will continue to defer to the discretion of the states on gun control matters.

‹#›

criminal justice1

image2.jpeg

image3.jpeg