The Right to Bear Arms

1
The Right to Bear Arms

• By Brian, James and Kyle

2
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.

3
Table of contents

• Miller Vs. The United States
• Quilici Vs. Morton Grove
• U.S Vs. Emerson

Summary
Case
Case
Summary
Summary
Case
Questions?
4

• UNITED STATES v. MILLER ET AL. SUPREME COURT OF
  THE UNITED STATES 307 U.S. 174

Back to Table
5
Miller vs. The United States(Summary)

• Carried a shotgun with a barrel of less then
  18inched from Claremore, to Siloam springs
• Did not have a stamp-affixed written order
• Law says that having this gun might infringe on
  the peace and dignity of the United States.
• Argue that this weapon is not a weapon that a
  militia would use and does not contribute to the
  common defense
• The other argument was that in Virginia in 1785,
  people where required to own firearms.

6
Miller vs. The United States (conclusion)

• Miller was given back his gun in the end
• The court said that in this case the second
  amendment was being infringed.

Back to Table
7
VICTOR D. QUILICI vs. VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT
Back to Table
8
Quilicy Vs.Village Morton Grove(Summary)

• There is also a second open question concerning
  the Second Amendment If it does create a right
  of individuals to own firearms, is the right
  enforceable against state regulation as well as
  against federal regulation?
• In 1876, the Supreme Court said the right--if it
  existed--was enforceable only against the federal
  government, but there's been a another bullet
  gt wholesale incorporation of Bill of Rights
  provisions into the 14th Amendment since then,
  and it's not clear that the Court would come to
  the same conclusion today. 

9
Quilicy vs. Village Morton Grove(conclusion)
Back to Table

• In Quilici vs. Morton Grove, a case involving a
  another bullet gt challenge to a Chicago suburb's
  ban on the possession of handguns, the Seventh
  Circuit concluded that the right was not
  enforceable against the states.
• Quilicy and Reichert argue in this court that the
  Morton Grove ordinance interferes with the
  federal govs ability to maintain public security
  by preventing individuals from defending
  themselves and the community from external or
  internal armed threats.

10

• UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TIMOTHY JOE EMERSON
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
  DISTRICT OF TEXAS, SAN ANGELO DIVISION
• 46 F. Supp. 2d 598

Back to Table
11
U.S. vs.. Emerson(Summary)

• On August 28, 1998 Timothy Emersons wife filed
  for divorce.
• She also applied for a restraining order to
  protect herself from threats, attacks, and to
  keep her financial situation stable
• Mrs. Emerson alleged that Mr. Emerson had
  threatened to kill the man whom she had been
  having an adulterous affair with
• At a court hearing Mr. Emerson agreed to the
  terms of the restraining order, but was not told
  by the courts that possession of a firearm would
  be in violation of the restraining order

12
U.S. vs. Emerson(Conclusion)
Back to table

• Mr. Emerson was arrested and indicted on
  possession of a firearm while under a restraining
  order - 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8)
• Emerson argued that, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8),
  violated his second amendment right to bear arms
• The indictment could only be dismissed if it was
  acknowledged that Emerson had the right as an
  individual to bear arms
• The court decided that 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) was
  unconstitutional and dismissed the case against
  Emerson

13
Question?

• Does the second amendment give individuals a
  right to bear arms?
• Does the historical evidence support the
  conclusion that the Second Amendment guarantees
  the right of individuals to possess firearms?
• If the Second Amendment does create an individual
  right, how broad is the right?  Does it include
  the right to possess arms that would be useful to
  a militia today--hand grenades, rocket launchers,
  etc.?  Or does it create only a right to possess
  arms that would have been used by a militia in
  1791--muskets?  Or is the right answer somewhere
  between these extremes?

14
Questions(More)

• The Second Amendment speaks of the right to bear
  arms.  Does this suggest, for example, that there
  is no right to possess weapons that could not be
  carried, such as cannons?
• If the underlying concern that inspired the
  Second Amendment--fear of an abusive federal
  government oppressing states and their
  citizens--no longer exists, should that affect
  how we interpret the Amendment?

15
Questions(More)
Back to table

• Which of the following regulations of firearms is
  constitutional? (1) an age restriction, (2) a
  four-day waiting period for purchase of a
  firearm, (3) a ban on the carrying of concealed
  weapons.