How does amendment ii of the bill of rights reinforce amendment i?
|
Read Online (Free) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers. To access this article, please contact JSTOR User Support . We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader. With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free. Show Already have an account? Log in Monthly Plan
Yearly Plan
Log in through your institution journal article Review: Constitutional Firepower: New Light on the Meaning of the Second AmendmentReviewed Work: To Keep and Bear Arms, the Origins of an Anglo-American Right by Joyce L. Malcolm Review by: Jeremy Rabkin The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-) Vol. 86, No. 1 (Autumn, 1995) , pp. 231-246 (16 pages) Published By: Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law https://doi.org/10.2307/1144010 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1144010 Read and download Log in through your school or library Alternate access options For independent researchers Read Online Read 100 articles/month free Subscribe to JPASS Unlimited reading + 10 downloads Journal Information The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology was founded in 1910 by Dean John Henry Wigmore, and has played a unique role in the criminal justice debate ever since. The journal provides a forum for dialogue and debate on current criminal law and criminology issues. The journal is one of the most widely read and cited legal publications in the world and is the third most widely subscribed journal published by any law school in the country. Its readership includes judges and legal academics, as well as practitioners, criminologists, and police officers. It publishes research in criminal law and criminology that addresses concerns pertinent to most of American society. The journal strives to publish the very best scholarship in this area, inspiring the intellectual debate and discussion essential to the development of social reform. Publisher Information Founded in 1859, the school that would become known as the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law was the first law school established in the city of Chicago. Today, Northwestern Law advances the understanding of law and produces graduates prepared to excel in a rapidly changing world. Northwestern Law uniquely blends a rigorous intellectual environment with a collegial and supportive community. Our students have access to the most interdisciplinary research faculty in the nation. We also have one of the lowest student-faculty ratios, so our students enjoy an unusual amount of individual access to these scholars, even after graduation. Our lakefront location in the heart of downtown Chicago provides a spectacular setting in which to live and study. A major world financial center, Chicago is the third largest city in the United States and one of its largest legal markets. Northwestern Law’s proximity to courts, commerce, and public interest activities enables students to experience the practice of law, as well as its theory, in one of the most vibrant legal and business communities in the world. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right to possess firearms. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right. In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military. This precedent stood for nearly 70 years until 2008, when the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 478 F.3d 370. The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of a Washington D.C. law which prohibited the possession of handguns. In a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The Court meticulously detailed the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention and proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms. The Court carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in dicta stated that firearm regulations would not implicate the Second Amendment if that weaponry cannot be used for law-abiding purposes. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession. In 2010, the Court further strengthened Second Amendment protections in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 567 F.3d 856. The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionality of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. The Court lacked a majority on which specific clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation. Several questions still remain unanswered, however, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment. Generally, in constitutional law, courts subject statutes and ordinances to three levels of scrutiny, depending on the issue at hand:
Circuit Court opinions following Heller suggests that courts are willing to uphold the following:
More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced its Heller ruling in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S.Ct. 1027 (2016). The Court struck down a Massachusetts statute which prohibited the possession or use of “stun guns” by finding that “stun guns” are protected under the Second Amendment. While ruling largely on the reasoning of Heller, the opinion was per curiam and therefore did not significantly add to Second Amendment jurisprudence. In 2022, the Supreme Court further expanded upon the precedent set by Heller in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In Bruen, the Court struck down a New York law requiring parties interested in purchasing a handgun for the use of self-defense outside of the home to obtain a license because the law issued licenses on a “may-issue” rather than a “shall issue” basis. This “may issue” licensing method allowed state authorities to deny interested parties public use licenses for firearms if the interested party was unable to show “proper cause” as to why they have a heightened need for self-protection over the general population. Furthermore, the Court disavowed the use of “means-end tests” many jurisdictions had adopted for the purposes of interpreting the Second Amendment, instead ruling that a Second Amendment analysis is limited to evaluating the historical nature of the right and whether a given use of a firearm or other weapon is deeply rooted in the history of the United States. Post-Bruen, courts can no longer use a standard scrutiny analysis like the one seen in Kachalsky v. County of Westchester to determine if a gun regulation is constitutional. Instead, a government wishing to place restrictions on firearm ownership must “affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.” In a concurrence, Justice Kavanaugh joined by Justice Roberts emphasizes that Bruen is not intended to invalidate “shall-issue” licensing structures or other restrictions on firearm ownership including fingerprinting, background checks, mental health evaluations, mandatory training requirements, and potential other requirements. Additionally, this concurrence draws a line between objective gun control measures, where an individual must pass a set of predetermined requirements, which are constitutional, and subjective gun control measures, such as licensing at a state official’s discretion, which are not. It remains to be seen how the ruling in Bruen and the sentiments espoused in this concurrence will influence cases going forward. See also: Constitutional Amendment. [Last updated in June of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team] Why is the 1st Amendment important to me?It protects the fundamental rights of conscience—the freedom to believe and express different ideas—in a variety of ways. Under the First Amendment, Americans have both the right to exercise their religion as well as to be free from government coercion to support religion.
What is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment?“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
What would happen if we didn't have the First Amendment?Make clear that a lack of First Amendment guarantees could result in legislative and other legal action to punish speakers, writers, adherents to particular religions, rally organizers and participants, and people seeking to complain to the government about perceived wrongs.
Why is the First Amendment important to democracy?The First Amendment to our Constitution protects five fundamental values of our society – religion, speech, press, and the right to petition and assemble. Our unwavering commitment to these principles has withstood tough battles throughout our history and has remained a cornerstone of our democracy.
|
