2+Court+Cases+and+Interpretations+(2)

Home

Amendment 2 (2)

// United States v. Cruikshank(1875) //  After the Civil War, William Cruikshank got a group of whites together who wanted to deprive blacks of their rights. He and the group went to a political gathering of the blacks and deprived them of their guns and their right to assemble. William claimed that his crimes were not federal which means that they were not against the United States. The Supreme Court agreed with him. Supreme Court declared that the constitution only protected the citizen’s rights against congressional intrusion, not private citizen intrusion.

Interpretation- It seems that the Supreme Court did not fully understand the importance of this amendment yet. They just stated that they could not do anything because congress was not the one impeding. It seemed that the Supreme Court did not take the second amendment seriously enough.

// Presser v. Illinois(1879) //  Court case deals with a man named Herman Presser versus Cook County Chicago, Illinois. Herman Presser was found guilty of violating Illinois military law that required parade participants to obtain a permit to be in possession of a firearm. Herman Presser had to pay a fine of $10. Presser appealed to the supreme court in violation of the second amendment right to bear arms. The Supreme Court did not agree with Presser. The Supreme Court determined that the second amendment only limited the federal government from passing fire arm laws, not the state government. Therefore, the Supreme Court declared the Illinois law constitutional.

Interpretation- The Supreme Court clearly showed that they believe the second amendment does not give the absolute right to have firearms. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the second amendment still shows that they believe that the second amendment has no power in the state laws. The interpretation did not change much since 1875.

// Miller v. Texas(1849) //  In 1849, Franklin P Miller carried a pistol with him on the streets of Texas. He went on to shoot and kill a man on the streets. Miller was eventually convicted of his crime. Miller appealed to the higher courts. He said that it violated his second amendment right to bear arms. The state of Texas did not agree with Miller and the Supreme Court said this did not violate his second amendment rights because the states have the right to have their own firearm laws. Miller was found guilty of murder.

Interpretation- The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the states showing that in this type of situation, the second amendment rights do not apply. This shows that the Supreme Court is getting a better understanding of the second amendment rights and when it can and cannot be applied.

// United States v. Miller(1939) //  In 1939, Jack Miller and Frank Layton were found guilty of taking an unregistered, sawed off double-barrel shotgun across state lines. They were carrying the shotgun int their car from Claremore, Oklahoma to Siloam Springs, Arkansas. Miller and Layton were found in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Miller and Layton appealed that this act was in violation of their second amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was not in violation of the second amendment.

Interpretation- The Supreme Court’s view of the second amendment does not seem to change from the previous. There does not seem to be a court case where they ruled in favor of a persons’ rights. This seems to be because of the fact that the Supreme Court does not have the power to deal with state laws.

// United States v. Lopez(1995) //  In 1995, Lopez was charged for attempting to deliver a handgun to a student and even though the gun was not loaded, he still had bullets in his possession. He violated the 1990 law that made it illegal to have a gun between a 1000 foot radius of a school. This was called the gun free school zone act. At court, he said that the gun free school zone act is unconstitutional and that it offends the second amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the gun free school zone act was unconstitutional, even if it didn’t support bringing guns to school.

Interpretation- The Supreme Court made it clear that the states laws were to be responsible for laws and punishment against the second amendment. The Supreme Court’s interpretation is that the laws a state makes may not contradict the second amendment and that its should be restricted justly.

// District of Columbia v. Heller(2008) //  In 2008, a licensed special police officer for the District of Columbia, Heller, carried a gun into federal office buildings, but was not allowed to have one in his home. Heller lived in a bad neighborhood and requested that he needed a gun for self protection. He eventually carried out a law suite to over turn the ban of guns in a home because of the constant danger in his area. It is the first case in U.S. history that decided whether the second amendment protected the right to keep firearms for self defence. The Supreme Court eventually stepped in and ruled that the second amendment protects an individual’s right to posses a firearms for self defence.

Interpretation- The Supreme Court ruled that the law was offending the second amendment and that it should be overturned. The interpretation of the court in this case is that even is the Supreme Court has little to no power over the states laws, the state law may not offend the second amendment.