Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

How have Supreme Court rulings changed the interpretation of the 2nd…

- - - - Supreme Court case in 1876
      - This was the first Supreme Court case dealing with the 2nd Amendment.
      - Background: In 1873 a group of white males attacked and killed over 100 African Americans over a dispute about a gubernatorial election in Louisiana. This event is known as the Colfax Massacre one of the worst instances of racially motivated violence. This massacre occurred during the Reconstruction Era where the federal government was trying to protect civil rights. Cruikshank and the other white individuals involved were charged under the Enforcement Act of 1870, which prohibits people from conspiring to deprive others of constitutional rights. The plaintiff's case states that white individuals deprived the group of African Americans of their first and Second Amendment rights.
      - The Supreme Court dropped the charges against the defendant because this was an issue that pertained to state courts. Judge Morrison Waite said that the first and Second Amendments were related to actions of state governments. He then went on to say that the Equal Protection clause and Due Process clause of the 14th amendment were related to the actions of the states, but not individuals.
      - The ruling of this case separates the right to keep and bear arms from the second Amendment. The court said that these rights are protected under the 14th amendment.
        
        This prevents Congress from taking away this right.
        
        The purpose of the Second Amendment was only to protect the states from the federal government. Language such as "well regulated" and "militia" suggest this.
      - The courts interpretation of the Second amendment from this case was that states have the right to maintain a militia, but individuals do not have the right to keep and bear arms.
        
        And because the states have the right to maintain a militia, they also have the power to regulate guns and weapons.
      - Sources
        
        https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/92/542
        
        Goldstone, Lawrence, 1947: "Unpunished murder : massacre at Colfax and the quest for justice"
    - - "security of a free state"
    - - https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?lname=&public=false&collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/siulj43&men_hide=false&men_tab=toc&kind=&page=107
- - - - Conclusion
        
        Throughout history, there has been a shift in the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment
        
        The original interpretation was that the Second Amendment was a state power to form and maintain a militia. Individuals were allowed to have guns but for the purpose of joining a militia during wartime.
        
        After time and several court cases, the interpretation shifted to an individual of citizens to keep and bear arms for personal protection. This limited states power and ability to regulate firearms
        
        The crucial Supreme Court case was District of Columbia vs. Heller. This cases causes the shift in interpretation.
        
        The Supreme Court cases were crucial because they provide the interpretation and wording that is used as supreme law of the land.
      - Supreme Court case in 2010.
      - The ruling in McDonald v. Chicago was that individuals in all 50 states have the right to keep and bear arms
      - This case is important because it put the right of the people over of the power of the state.
      - According to the court, the 2nd Amendment was under the due process section of the 14th amendment.
        
        Giving people the right to bear arms for self protection
      - Background: Otis McDonald lived in Chicago and owned firearms. He wanted to purchase a handgun for self-defense. Due to rising crime rates in Chicago, there was a handgun ban passed that prohibited individuals from legally owning a handgun. McDonald and other filed a lawsuit against the City of Chicago.
      - The case went to the court of appeals for the Seventh circuit where the court ruled in favor of Chicago. The court cited other cases such as United States vs. Cruikshank and said Chicago had the right to ban handguns and regulate other firearms.
        
        After the court of appeals ruled against McDonald, several pro Second Amendment organizations supported a litigation on behalf of McDonald. The case then went to the Supreme Court.
      - The Supreme Court ruled in favor of McDonald and said that the individual right to keep and bear arms is protected under the 2nd Amendment. This right is covered by the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment. The court cited District of Columbia vs. Heller.
        
        This lowered states power to regulate firearms because it goes against individuals rights.
      - Sources
        
        https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
        
        https://harvardlawreview.org/2010/11/fourteenth-amendment-ae-incorporation-of-the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-mcdonald-v-city-of-chicago/
    - - The court also ruled that the handgun ban and the heavy safety regulation of long guns was unconstitutional because it violated the Second Amendment.
    - - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
        
        https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5vk9s9
  - - - This case is where there begins to be a shift in interpretation from state to individual
  - - - This case helped to showcase the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in the 20th century. According to the Supreme Court, the states maintenance of a well-regulated militia is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and takes priority over an individuals right to keep and bear arms.
  - - - https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174