Essays /

13 Th Amendment To The Constitution Of Essay

Essay preview

Sandy Hook Shooting: Is It Time to Change the Second Amendment? Sandy Hook Shooting Is It Time to Change the Second Amendment About 80 million Americans, representing half of U.S. homes, own more than 223 million guns. The debate about the Second Amendment has been fierce, but after the horrible atrocity that just happened in Newtown, Connecticut, the time has come to rethink the amendment and change it. The change of the amendment in terms of availability of weapons, and who has the right to possess them, would create a safer society and lower the gun homicide rate in the U.S. — a figure that currently makes the U.S. the highest in the world. The change would include a certain necessary procedure in order to get a license for possessing a gun. Moreover, this procedure should include medical checks, full criminal history, and a police interview to prove they actually need a gun. Atrocities like what happened today could theoretically be prevented if it were more difficult to come into possession of weapons in the U.S. At this moment, there is a widely accepted misconception about the history of the amendment and its purpose within American society. When the founding fathers implemented Second Amendment the main idea behind it was to provide citizens with a way to oppose possible tyrannical government. However, today it is widely believed that the Second Amendment is there to provide you with a way to protect yourself from other individuals. The debate is also present over whether the Second Amendment provides for collective or individual rights. However, in 2008, in the District of Columbia v. Heller case before the Supreme Court, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In a 2011 Gallup poll, only 26% of American citizens said they would support the handgun ban. When Gallup first asked Americans this question in 1959, 60% favored banning handguns. But since 1975, the majority of Americans have opposed such a measure, with opposition around 70% in recent years. Americans have shifted to a more pro-gun view on gun laws, with record-low support for bans on handguns, assault rifle bans, and stricter gun laws in general. This remains true even as high-profile incidents of gun violence continue across the United States. The reasons for this ideological shift do not appear to be reactions to the crime situation, and are probably rather related to a widespread acceptance of guns by the American public. It is widely believed that having the right to bear arms contributes to higher security. By enabling a great number of people to carry weapons, the society as a whole will not benefit from greater security. Moreover, it will become more unstable. The control of the weapons must be toughened and the right to possess and bear them restricted. The cases of shootings on American campuses and in schools are numerous and an argument that stricter gun control laws should be enforced stands strong. With medical and background checks, people who want to possess a gun won’t be stopped. However, the chance that someone with a mental disorder will have access to arsenal gets lower. The U.S. has the highest rate of gun ownership and of gun homicide in the developed world, it can definitely be argued that the amount of guns present the homicide rate will also be reduced. In 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agreed with the U.N. to set a timetable for the regulation of the arms trade between the states. The United States joined 152 other countries in support of the Arms Trade Treaty Resolution, which establishes the dates for the 2012 UN conference intended to further regulate gun trade around the world. Many in the U.S. have seen this treaty as an introduction to domestic firearm control, even though this is wrong. In order to change the Second Amendment, a two-thirds majority in the Senate is required and at this point chances of changing that happening are slim. Throughout the world there are different regulations about gun ownership. Great Britain banned private ownership of guns in 1997; Australia also followed the same path. A 1999 Harvard School of Public Health study revealed that, "Americans feel less safe as more people in their community begin to carry guns," and that 90% believe that "regular" citizens should be prohibited from bringing guns into most public places, including stadiums, restaurants, hospitals, college campuses, and places of worship. We should not have the illusion that the world can overnight become a safe place where guns are not needed. These are dark times for those who demand sane regulation of gun ownership. The courts come and go. Public opinion and political power, like the common law, changes and evolves. Guns must not be accessible to all and they must be restricted. By restricting the gun availability, the possibility for situations like the Newtown massacre would be dramatically lowered. Even if we assume that one day a tyrannical government may come to power, under the current circumstances, with the U.S. government in possession of tanks, airplanes and drones, one can argue that the light weapons held by the citizens would not be enough. The argument of the founding fathers therefore becomes obsolete and the amendment must be changed to ensure the greater safety of American citizens.

The Second Amendment

[pic]
In 1776, America`s Founders came together in Philadelphia to draw up a "Declaration of Independence," ending political ties to Great Britain. Written by Thomas Jefferson, it is the fundamental statement of people`s rights and what government is and from what source it derives its powers: |       |WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain|       | |   |unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, |   | | |Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed. | | | | | | | |The Founders were declaring that we are all equal, and that we are defined by rights that we are born with, not given to us | | | |by government. Among those rights is the right to pursue happiness--to live our lives as we think best, as long as we | | | |respect the right of all other individuals to do the same. The Founders also declared that governments are created by people| | | |to secure their rights. Whatever powers government has are not "just" unless they come from us, the people. | |

Eleven years later, after the war for independence had been won, our Founders assembled once again to draw up a plan for governing the new nation. That plan would be ratified two years later as the Constitution of the United States of America. To understand the true meaning of the Second Amendment, it is important to understand the men who wrote and ratified it, and the issues they faced in creating the Constitution. During the debate over the ratification of the Constitution, there was significant concern that a strong federal government would trample on the individual rights of citizens--as had happened under British rule. To protect the basic rights of Americans--rights which each person possesses and that are guaranteed, but not granted, by any government--the framers added the first ten amendments to the Constitution as a package. Those amendments have come to be known as the Bill of Rights. They represent the fundamental freedoms that are at the heart of our society, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The History of Our Rights

The British people did not have a written constitution as we have in the United States. However, they did have a tradition of protecting individual rights from government. Those rights were set forth in a number of documents, including the Magna Carta and the English Declaration of Rights. The Founders who wrote the Bill of Rights drew many of their ideas from the traditions of English "common law," which is the body of legal tradition and court decisions that acted as an unwritten constitution and as a balance to the power of English kings. The Founders believed in the basic rights of men as described in written legal documents and in unwritten legal traditions. One of these was the right of the common people to bear arms, which was specifically recognized in the English Declaration of Rights of 1689. However, the Founders also recognized that without a blueprint for what powers government could exercise, the rights of the people would always be subject to being violated. The Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, was created to specifically describe the powers of government and the rights of individuals government was not allowed to infringe.

1. Does the Second Amendment Describe An Individual Right?
Some people claim that there is no individual right to own firearms. However, anyone familiar with the principles upon which this country was founded will recognize this claim`s most glaring flaw: in America, rights--by definition--belong to individuals.

The Founding Fathers created the Bill of Rights to protect the rights of individuals. The freedoms of religion, speech, association, and the rest all refer to individual liberties. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is no different. When the first Congress penned the Second Amendment in 1789, it took the wording, with some style changes, from a list of rights introduced by James Madison of Virginia. Congressman Madison had promised the Virginia ratifying convention that he would sponsor a Bill of Rights if the Constitution were ratified. The amendments he wrote would not change anything in the original Constitution. Madison repeatedly insisted that nothing in the original Constitution empowered the federal government to infringe on the rights of the people, specifically including the right of individuals to have guns.

In constructing the Bill of Rights, Madison followed the recommendations of the state ratifying conventions. Though they ratified the Constitution, several of those conventions had recommended adding provisions about specific rights. Five conventions recommended adding a right to arms; by comparison, only three conventions mentioned free speech. Members of Congress had no doubt as to the amendment`s meaning. They and their contemporaries were firearm owners, hunters and in some cases gun collectors (George Washington and Thomas Jefferson exchanged letters about their collections). They had just finished winning their freedoms with gun in hand, and would, in their next session, pass legislation requiring most male citizens to buy and own at least one firearm and 30 rounds of ammunition.

The only reason there is a controversy about the Second Amendment is that on this subject many highly vocal and influential 21st Century Americans reject what seemed elementary common sense--and basic principle--to our Founding Fathers. The words of the founders make clear they believed the individual right to own firearms was very important: Thomas Jefferson said, "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms."

Patrick Henry said, "The great object is, that every man be armed."

Richard Henry Lee wrote that, "to preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms."

Thomas Paine noted, "[A]rms . . . discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property."

Samuel Adams warned that: "The said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

The Constitution and Bill of Rights repeatedly refer to the "rights" of the people and to the "powers" of government. The Supreme Court has recognized that the phrase "the people," which is used in numerous parts of the Constitution, including the Preamble, the Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to people as individuals. In each case, rights belonging to "the people" are without question the rights of individuals.

Dozens of essays have been written by the nation`s foremost authorities on the Constitution, supporting the traditional understanding of the right to arms as an individual right, protected by the Second Amendment.

2. Isn`t the "well regulated militia" the National Guard?
Gun control supporters insist that "the right of the people" really means the "right of the state" to maintain the "militia," and that this "militia" is the National Guard. This is not only inconsistent with the statements of America`s Founders and the concept of individual rights, it also wrongly defines the term "militia."

Centuries before the Second Amendment was drafted, European political writers used the term "well regulated militia" to refer to all the people, armed with their own firearms or swords, bows or spears, led by officers they chose.

America`s Founders defined the militia the same way. Richard Henry Lee wrote, "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . ." Making the same point, Tench Coxe wrote that the militia "are in fact the effective part of the people at large." George Mason asked, "[W]ho are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

The Militia Act of 1792, adopted the year after the Second Amendment was ratified, declared that the Militia of the United States (members of the militia who had to serve if called upon by the government) included all able-bodied adult males. The National Guard was not established until 1903. In 1920 it was designated one part of the "Militia of the United States." The other part included other able-bodied adult men, plus some other men and women.

However, in 1990, the Supreme Court held that the federal government possesses complete power over the National Guard. The Guard is the third part of the United States Army, along with the regular Army and Army Reserve. The Framers` independent "well regulated militia" remains as they intended, America`s armed citizenry.

3.    Have the Courts or Congress ever studied the meaning of the Second Amendment? On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that the Second Amendment protects a right to possess firearms for individuals, and not just a right to have them as part of a militia or the National Guard. The Court also held that the Second Amendment is not meant to protect a “state’s right” to maintain a militia or National Guard.

The decision struck down the District’s bans on handguns and on having any gun in usable condition as violations of the Second Amendment, and prohibited the District from denying a person a permit to carry a firearm within his home on without cause.

Highlights of the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas, can be found here: /Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=235&issue=010.

The Court ruled that “[T]he operative clause [of the Second Amendment] codifies a ‘right of the people.” And went on to explain: “In all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ‘the people,’ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. . . .’”

Put plainly, the Heller decision says that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for legal purposes, including for sporting use and for self-defense. In coming to this conclusion, the courts examined the meaning of the words in the Second Amendment, including the meaning of “arms” the phrase “to bear arms” and to “keep “ arms. The court also carefully considered the meaning of “militia” and the relationship between the militia and the “right to keep and bear arms.”

In the majority opinion, the court clearly rejected the idea of a “collective" or group right, that is, a right held by the states. The court found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms.

The full impact of the Heller decision is still not known. States and cities with restrictive gun laws are now facing challenges to their specific laws and future court cases will continue to define the how the Second Amendment protects individual rights and what types of gun laws will be allowed.

Before the Heller decision, the most thorough examination of the Second Amendment and related issues ever undertaken by a court is the 2001 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in U.S. v. Emerson. In Emerson, the Appeals court devoted dozens of pages of its decision to studying the Second Amendment’s history and text. It began by examining the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Miller (1939), which individual rights opponents claim supports the notion of the Second Amendment protecting only a “collective right” of a state to maintain a militia. The Fifth Circuit disagreed. “We conclude that Miller does not support the collective rights or sophisticated collective rights approach to the Second Amendment.”

The court then turned to the history and text of the Second Amendment. “There is no evidence in the text of the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that the words ‘the people’ have a different connotation within the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere in the Constitution. In fact, the text of the Constitution, as a whole, strongly suggests that the words ‘the people’ have precisely the same meaning within the Second Amendment as without. And as used throughout the Constitution, ‘the people’ have ‘rights’ and ‘powers,’ but federal and state governments only have ‘powers’ or ‘authority’, never ‘rights.’”

The court concluded, “We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to convey militia power to the states, limit the federal government’s power to maintain a standing army, or applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty. All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans. We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training.”

Four times in American history, Congress has enacted legislation declaring its clear understanding of the Second Amendment`s meaning. Congress has never given any support for the newly minted argument that the amendment fails to protect any right of the people, and instead ensures a “collective right” of states to maintain militias. In 1866, 1941, 1986, and 2005, Congress passed laws to reaffirm this guarantee of personal freedom and to adopt specific safeguards to enforce it.

The Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866 was enacted to protect the rights of freed slaves to keep and bear arms following the Civil War and at the outset of the chaotic Reconstruction period. The act declared protection for the “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and . . . estate . . . including the constitutional right to bear arms. . . .”

The Property Requisition Act of 1941 was intended to reassure Americans that preparations for war would not include repressive or tyrannical policies against firearms owners. It was passed shortly before the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, which led the United States into World War II. The act declared that it would not “authorize the requisitioning or require the registration of any firearms possessed by any individual for his personal protection or sport,” or “to impair or infringe in any manner the right of any individual to keep and bear arms. . . .”

The two more recent laws sought to reverse excesses involving America’s legal system. In the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986, Congress reacted to overzealous enforcement policies under the federal firearms law: "The Congress finds that the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms under the second amendment to the United States Constitution; to security against illegal and unreasonable searches and seizures under the fourth amendment; against uncompensated taking of property, double jeopardy, and assurance of due process of law under the fifth amendment; and against unconstitutional exercise of authority under the ninth and tenth amendments; require additional legislation to correct existing firearms statutes and enforcement policies. . . ."

And in 2005, as a result of lawsuits aiming to destroy America’s firearms industry, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to end this threat to the Second Amendment. The act begins with findings that go to the heart of the matter: "Congress finds the following: (1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms."

4. What are "gun control" laws?
"Gun control" is the popular name for laws that regulate, limit or prohibit the purchase and possession of firearms. "Gun control" laws are usually proposed on the grounds they will stop the criminal misuse of firearms, but they are almost never actually targeted at criminals. Supporters of "gun control" most commonly call for laws that restrict law-abiding people, the only ones who will obey them. Laws prohibiting the possession of a firearm are unlikely to stop a person willing to commit robbery, assault or murder. On the other hand, honest citizens who respect the law will submit to the gun control laws, even if the laws do not make them safer.

5. Are gun control laws new?
For centuries there have been efforts to control the possession of arms--whether crossbows, swords or guns--by government authority. Efforts by English monarchs to limit or prohibit the possession of arms led to protests and revolts against royal power. The English Declaration of Rights of 1689 was the result of one such revolt, and it included the right of the individual to own and bear arms. The American Founders built on that tradition of individual rights when they included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

6. Are firearms ever used to stop crime?
This is an important question that is at the center of much of the debate over firearms and gun laws. Incidents in which firearms are misused, whether accidentally or by criminals, "make the news." Cases of people who have escaped harm because they had access to firearms are not so easy to record. Any ban on firearms is unlikely to prevent criminals from getting them. Even in places where firearms, particularly handguns, are banned--both here in the United States and internationally--criminals continue to get and misuse guns in crimes. The most direct impact of gun bans has been to disarm law-abiding people. So, are guns used to stop crimes? Professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University has provided the best answer to this. An award-winning expert on crime, Prof. Kleck has conducted extensive survey research to measure firearms ownership and use in America. He found that firearms were used as often as 2.5 million times a year for protection--three to five times more often, he says, than they are used for criminal purposes. In the vast majority of these protective cases, the gun is not fired.

7. Does the Second Amendment apply to modern guns the same way it applied to flintlocks? Isn`t the Second Amendment dated and obsolete? Just as the First Amendment applies to the modern printing press and the Internet, the Second Amendment applies to modern firearms. The most important aspect of the Second Amendment is the philosophy on which it is founded: that all free people have the right to defend themselves, their families, communities and nation. In 1789 it applied to the freedom to keep and bear arms just as it does today. The technological advances of the past two centuries do not make that principle obsolete, any more than computerized printing cancels the First Amendment. 8. Isn`t the Second Amendment just about protecting guns for hunting? The Second Amendment is not about hunting at all. The Second Amendment is about protecting the right of a free people to defend that freedom and to protect their families and communities from threats. The Founders, who all considered themselves English citizens, had seen the British army disarm the public. They believed this was an improper use of government power. In writing the Constitution, they included the Second Amendment to prohibit the American government from doing what the British had done. Hunting is an important American tradition and is the most effective wildlife management tool available. Firearms ownership is critical if hunting is to continue. So the fight to protect Second Amendment rights has the benefit of protecting this American sporting tradition.

9. Shouldn`t we at least try some gun control to see if it works? We have. Over the past century, all types of gun control laws have been implemented in different parts of the United States. Everything from purchase restrictions to complete gun bans has been tried. These laws have not worked, and in some cases have had the opposite effect from what was intended.

Some big cities have strict gun laws. New York City has very strict gun laws, more strict than the rest of the state of New York. In spite of this, New York has always had significantly higher violent crime rates. Washington, D.C. and Chicago, Ill. have banned the ownership of handguns, and both these cities have much higher violent crime rates than the surrounding areas. States such as Illinois and New York have gun owner licensing. Other states, such as Hawaii, have gun registration. However, none of these laws led to reductions in violent crime rates. And that is the real test of gun control laws. Do crime rates fall after gun laws are passed? The clear answer is no. Gun control has been tested, and it has failed the test. 10. If there are more guns, won`t we have more crime?

Many areas with high percentages of gun owners are some of the most crime free areas in the nation. The simple presence of a gun, or many guns, does not lead to crime. Most of the states with higher per capita legal gun ownership have the lowest rates of violent crime, while states with lower per capita gun ownership have much higher violent crime rates. The real answer to reducing crime is not passing gun laws, but solving other problems that really do lead to high crime rates. Gun control diverts attention from the roots of the crime problem. 11. Don`t we need gun control to stop firearm accidents?

The truth is that in the past seventy years, while the U.S. population has more than doubled and the number of firearms owned by Americans has gone up five times, fatal firearm accidents have been cut by 76%. The most important factor in reducing firearms accidents is proper education on the safe handling and storage of firearms. NRA, the leading pro-gun ownership rights group in the nation, has spent over a century teaching firearm safety. Firearms accidents can always be reduced further, but their numbers are far below many other common mishaps including drownings, falls and poisonings. Gun accidents account for only 0.7% of accidental deaths. 12. Wouldn`t we be safer if we banned guns?

To some people, banning guns sounds like a perfect way to make the world safer. However, proponents of gun bans ignore two important facts. Criminals ignore gun bans, and law-abiding people will be even more at risk with no effective means of self-defense. The British experience with gun bans is a perfect example. Over the past 20 years, Great Britain has banned handguns and many long guns. During that same period violent crime has increased dramatically. One significant area where crime has risen sharply in England is home burglaries where the occupants are present. Since they know the residents will not be armed, thieves more openly enter even occupied homes, often during daylight hours. This has resulted in more violence against victims who try to defend their homes. In general, the crime rates of Canada, Britain, and Australia, all of which have implemented strict gun control laws, have risen significantly after the passage of these laws. At the same time, the U.S. has seen a significant drop in violent crime rates. The evidence shows that firearm ownership, including handguns, does not lead to increased crime rates, and gun bans do not deter criminals from committing violent crimes. In fact, ownership of firearms deters crime. 13. Shouldn`t we at least ban handguns?

The important truth is: criminals do not want to attack armed citizens. The only real impact of a handgun ban is to insure that law-abiding citizens are disarmed, leaving them more at the mercy of illegally armed criminals. Cities such as Washington D.C. and Chicago have banned handguns, and violent crime has not been eliminated, or even reduced.

14. Who can buy a firearm? Can just anyone own a gun?
Federal law says that certain people cannot buy or possess any firearm. This includes convicted felons, fugitives from the law and people found mentally incompetent by a court. A licensed dealer may not sell handguns to people under the age of 21 or long guns to people under the age of 18.

In addition, under federal law, a person under age 18 may not possess a handgun or handgun ammunition, and it is illegal for a person to provide a handgun or handgun ammunition to a person under age 18, except for target shooting, hunting, or certain other exempted purposes. Additional restrictions are also imposed by individual states and localities. 15. Doesn`t the public have a right to know who owns a gun?

Gun registration and owner licensing don`t help police solve crime. Criminals do not register their guns or get licenses. On the other hand, gun registration lists have been used to confiscate citizens` firearms in cities like New York and in states such as California.

16. We license drivers, shouldn`t we license gun owners?
Driving a car is not a constitutional right. People drive on the public roads as a privilege provided by the community. The community sets standards for drivers that everyone has to meet to make the roads safe. Firearm ownership is a constitutional right, and that means government has very limited power to restrict it. Gun owner licensing has little, if any, real value in preventing crime, but has proven time and again to set the stage for infringement on the right to own a firearm.

American gun owners know their concerns about licensing are not unfounded, because they know the history of gun control in Great Britain. After passage of the Firearms Act of 1920, Britons suddenly could possess pistols and rifles only if they proved they had "good reason" for receiving a police permit. Then, in 1936, the British police began regulating how people stored their guns. As the public grew accustomed to gun licensing, the licensing requirements got stricter. The British gun owners got used to higher and higher levels of control. The result was a total ban on the possession of handguns and many types of rifle and shotguns. When the gun bans became law, no one remembered that the 1920 gun bill was only supposed "to prevent criminals and persons of that description from being able to have revolvers and to use them." 17. What should we do about gun shows where people don`t have to obey all the regular gun laws? The "gun show loophole" is a myth created by anti-gun activists to advance their political agenda. There is no loophole. All gun sales or transfers are subject to state and federal laws. All licensed firearm dealers must complete the process provided for by state and federal law--a process that includes completion of forms and a backgroun...

Read more

Keywords

-0 -0213 -03162 -03370 -0487 -07802 -09124 -09562 -1 -11 -1164 -12 -1255 -1269 -144 -15 -1674 -17 -181 -187 -19 -2 -207 -21040 -21991 -2238 -24060 -25 -253 -254 -290 -295 -3 -300 -3017 -309 -312 -313 -314 -32174 -347 -36 -361 -36525 -3770 -38 -39 -3942 -395 -4 -4051 -4270 -434 -472 -49 -495 -5 -51372 -514786 -520 -5244 -53 -530424 -55786 -56584 -57003 -57170 -57607 -58 -5811 -58160 -58273 -58980 -594 -59928 -6 -669 -67 -674 -684 -695 -699 -7 -7153 -7162 -7425 -7637 -7658 -7864 -8 -8018 -8223 -823 -85109 -85941 -87023 -87026 -87436 -886363 -89307 -9 -913 -927 -933995 -945999 -9623664 .. /1288537 /issues/factsheets/read.aspx /opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf /past/57.1.74 0 0.7 000 00287504 010 03 07 08 1 10 10.1093 10.2307 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 11 11.1 11.2 11.3 110 1107 111 112 113 1131 1132c 1132d 114 115 116 117 118 119 12 120 121 122 123 1236 1237 124 125 126 127 128 1285 1288537 129 13 130 131 132 133 134 135 1359225 136 137 138 139 14 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 15 150 151 152 153 154 155 1558 156 157 158 159 16 160 161 162 163 1638 164 165 166 167 1671 168 1688 1689 169 17 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 1760s 1765 1769 177 1776 178 1780 1780s 1784 1785 1787 1788 1789 179 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 18 180 1803 181 1812 1814 182 1820 1825 1829 183 1833 184 185 1852 186 1863 1864 1866 187 1875 1876 188 1886 1888 189 1890 1894 1897 18th 19 190 1903 191 1910 192 1920 193 1936 1937 1938 1939 194 1941 1957 1959 1959239 1968 1971 1972 1973 1975 1976 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1986 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 19th 1st 2 2.1 2.2 2.5 20 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 204 209 20th 21 21st 22 223 23 232.1 235 237 239 24 25 252 253 254 256 257 258 26 27 272 273 275 2783 28 281 283 285 29 293 2d 3 30 3025 305 306 307 309 31 32 33 334 34 341 35 350 351 36 361 37 371 38 386 39 3d 4 40 400 41 412 418 42 423 425 43 44 441 45 451 452 46 461 466 47 48 484 49 490 4th 5 50 5032 51 52 526 53 535 539 54 542 55 551 552 553 554 56 561 57 570 58 583 5841 587 59 591 597 5th 6 60 600 61 62 628 63 637 64 643 65 66 669 67 673 68 69 7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 771 778 78 781 789 79 793 7th 8 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.6.1 8.6.2 8.7 80 803 81 82 83 84 85 86 8605166 87 874 88 89 8th 9 90 91 913 914 92 922 923 93 94 95 96 97 978 97th 98 983 99 9th abc abc-clio abdo abid abigail abl able-bodi abolitionist abridg abroad absenc absurd abus academi accept access accid accident accomplish accord account accout accoutr accur accus accustom ach acknowledg acquir acquisit across acru act action activ activist actual acut ad adam adamson add addit address adher adject adjoin admin administr adopt adult advanc advantag advoc affect affirm affix afford aforesaid afraid afro afro-americanist age agenda agrarian agre ahead aim airplan akhil akil akin al alabama alameda alan alarm albuquerqu aldin alexand alik alito allow allud almost along alreadi also alstyn alter although alway amar ambigu ambiti amend america american americanist amherst amici amicus ammunit among amount amplifi analog analogu analysi analyst anarchi ancestor ancient and/or anderson andrew angel anglo anglo-american anglo-saxon ann annal annapoli annot announc anoth answer anthoni anti anti-federalist anti-gun anti-ku-klux-klan antifederalist antonin anybodi anyon anyth apart appar appeal appear appli applic appoint apprehend appris approach appropri approv appx april arbitr arbitrari arbitrarili arbor archiv area argu argument aris aristocraci arkansa arm armi armori arms-bear around arrang arrest arsenal art arthur articl articul asid ask aspect aspir assault assembl assemblag assert assess assist assiz associ assum assur atlant atroc attach attack attain attempt attend attent attitud attorney attribut aug august auncestor auspic australia authent author auto auxiliari avail avalon avoid avow award award-win away awe b backdrop background bad bag balanc baldwin ball baltimor ban banc band bar barbara bard barnett barrel barri bartlett base basic battl bayonet bear becam becom bedford/st began begin behavior behind beleid believ belmont belong belt benefit bernard best bibliographi bickford big bill billi bind birmingham biskup bitter black blacksmith blackston blackwel blank blasphem bledso blind block blodgett blodgett-ford bloomington blueprint blunt boast bodenham bodi bogus bolster bonus book bordenet border bore bork born boston bound bow box boynton branch breen brethren breyer brian brief briefli bring britain britannica british briton broad broader brochur brother brought brown bucket buffalo build built bulk bulletin bureau burglari burk burn burthen busi buy buyer byu c c.2 c.f.r ca cal california call cambridg came camp campus canada cancel cannot cantrel capabl capac capit capita caplan caprici captur car care carl carol carolin carolina carri carriag carta carter cartridg case casey cass cast catch cathol cato caus cautious cavendish cbs ceas celebr center centr central centuri certain certainti cga.ct.gov ch challeng chanc chang chaotic chapter charact character charg charl charlen check chester chi chicago chicago-k chief chimer choic choos chose christoph cir circuit circumst citat cite citi citizen citizenri civ civic civil civilian claim claremor clarenc clarifi clark class classic claus clayton clear clear-cut clergi clerk clev clinton clio close club co co-equ code codifi coke col col.3 cold colfax collect collector colleg coloni colonist columbia come comitatus comma command commenc comment commentari commerc commerci commit committe common commonplac commonwealth communiti compani companion comparison compatriot compel compens compet complet complianc comport compos comprehens compris compromis computer conceal conced conceiv concentr concept concern concert conclud conclus condemn condit conduct confeder confer confid confirm confisc conflict confront confus cong congress congression congressman conjunct conn connect connecticut connot conscienc conscienti consent conserv consid consider consist conspir conspiraci const constabl constanc constant constantino constitut constraint constru construct constructionist contain contempl contemporari contempt contemptu contend content contenti context continent continu contradict contrari contrast contribut control controversi convent convey convict cook coordin copi copious core cornel corollari corp corpor correct correspond corrupt cost cottrol could councellor counter counti countri cours court coven cowboy cox coöimbia crackdown cramer creat creator cress crime crimin critic crooker crossbow crown cruikshank ct cultur current custom custom-hous cut cv d d.b d.c danger daniel darel dark date davi david day daylight dc de dead deal dealer dealt death debar debat decad decemb decid decis declan declar declaratori decond deem defeat defenc defend defens defianc defin definit degre delawar deleg delici demand democraci democrat demonstr deni denial denni denniston denson depart depend deploy depriv deriv describ descript design desir despit destroy destruct detail deter deterior determin deterr detroit develop devot diamond dicta dictat dictionari die differ difficult direct disabl disaffect disagre disarm disarma disassembl discard disciplin discourag discret discuss disguis disgust dismiss disord display dispos disposit disput disqualifi disregard dissent dissid distinct distress distribut district distrust disturb disus divers divert divid divis docket document documentari doe doesn doherti doi domest done dorosan doubl doubt doug dougla downright dozen draft drafte dramat draw drawn drew drill drive driver drone drop drown dual dubious due duke dulaney duli dumbauld dunlap durham duti e e.g earl earli earlier earliest eas easi easili economi ed edit editor editori educ edward effect effectu effici effort eg eighteen eighteenth eighth either elect elementari eleven eli elig elimin elizabethan elliot els elsewher embargo embarrass embodi emerg emerson emphas employ employe empow en enabl enact encompass encourag encroach encyclopedia encyclopædia end endeavour endors endow enemi enforc eng engag england english englishman englishmen enjoy enlarg enlist enliste enorm enough enrol enshrin enslav ensur enter entir entitl enumer episod equal equat equip equipag er era erect eric erni es escap especi essay essenti establish estat estim et ethic eugen europ european even event ever everi everybodi everyon everyth evid evil evinc evolut evolv ewca ewhc examin exampl except excess exchang exclud exclus execut exempt exercis exhaust exist expand expans expect expens experi expert explain explan explanatori explicit explor export express expressli extend extens extent extern extirp extrem f f.3d face facil facilit fact factor fail failur faith fall fallaci fals famili familiar fantasi far farmer fashion fatal fate father favor fbi fear februari fed feder federalist feel fell fellow fellow-citizen felon fend ferrymen fezel ff field fierc fifteen fifth fight figur file fill final find findlaw finish fire firearm firelock first fit five five-volum flagiti flaw flint flintlock floor florida focus foe follow follow-up foner footnot forbid forc forcibl ford fordham foreclos foreign foremost forest forgotten form formal former formid fort forth forthcom forti forty-f forward found foundat founder four fourteenth fourth fowl frame framer franc franci francisco frank franklin free freed freedmen freedom freemen frey fugit full fulli function fundament futur g gallup game gari garland garrati garri garrison gave gay general geo georg georgetown georgia german german-american get ginsburg give given glare glass glenn glin.gov global glorious go golden gone good got govern government governor gradual grammar grant great greater greec green greenhous greenwood gregg grew grievanc griswold ground group grow gruyter guarante guaranti guarantor guard guardian guid guidebook gun gunn h hagu halbrook half hall hamilton hampshir hand hand-written handbook handgun handl happen happi harbor harcourt hardi harm harper harri harv harvard hast hatter haven hawaii hawkin hawthorn head health heart heavili held heller helmk help hemenway henc henigan henri herein hereinaft herman hero hessian heyman hidden high high-profil higher highest highlight hilair hillari hirsch histor histori historian ho hold holder home homicid honest hook hope hopkin horn horowitz horribl horwitz hospit houghton hour hous houston howard howev http huffington human hunt hunter hybrid i.e id idea ideal identifi ideolog idiom idiomat ignor ii ii-a ii-d iii ill illeg illegitim illinoi illus ilya imag immedi immemori immun impact impair imperi implement impli implic implicit imploy import impos imposit imposs improp inadequ inc inch incid includ incoher incom incompet inconsist inconveni incorpor increas incurs inde indec independ indiana indic indict indiffer individu individual-right industri ineffici inelig inevit inextric infect inferior influenc influenti inform infring inhabit inher inherit initi injuri injustic inordin insert insid insist inspector inspir instanc instead institut instruct instrument insuffici insur insurrect insurrectionari insurrectionist intellectu intend intent interest interfer intermedi intern internet interpret interst intertwin interview intrast intrins introduc introduct invad invalid invas invent involv isbn island isn issn issu item j j.l jack jame januari jealous jefferson jeopardi jersey jewel jewett joan joe john johnson join jonathan jone joseph joshua journal joyc jr jstor judg judgement judgment judici judiciari juli june juri jurisprud jurist juror just justic justif justifi juvenil k kachalski kan kansa kate keep kennedi kent kept kesteren kevin key kick kill kind king kingdom klan kleck klux knapsack know known knox konig kopel kruschk ku ky l l.j lack lambert land landmark languag lanham larg last late later latter law law-abid law.cornell.edu law.umkc.edu lawbook lawless lawmak lawrenc lawsuit lawyer lay layton lcav.org lead leagle.com least leav led lee left legaci legal legisl legislatur lehr length leonard les less lesson let letter level levi levinson lewi libel liberti librari licens licenti lie life lifetim light like likewis limit linda linder lindsay line linguist link liptak list littl little-visit littlefield live lobbi local lock long long-establish long-run longer longstand look loophol lord los lose loss lost lot lott loui low lower lowest loyal loyalist ltd lucinda lund lure lyle lysand m ma mack mad made madigan madison maer magazin magna magnitud mail main maintain mainten major make maker mal mal-administr malcolm male man manag mandatori mani manifest mankind manner manpow manufactur mar march march-april mari marin mark martin marvin maryland mason mass massachusett massacr masshist.org massiv matter matthew mauro may may-issu mayhew mcaffe mcclurg mccullagh mcdonald mcfarland mcreynold md mean meant measur mediat medic meet member membership memory.loc.gov men mental mention mercenari merchant merci mere merkel met method mexico mi mich michael michigan mifflin might mightili militari militia miller milli million minim minist ministri mint mintz minutemen miscellan misconcept misconstruct misdemeanor mishap misidentifi miss missouri missouri-kansa mistrust misus mixtur mob model moder modern modifi moment monarch monarchi money monro month moor mooredefenselaw.com moral moreov motion mount mounti move movement mr much mulloy multipli murder musket must muster myth mythic n n.c n.y nabu name narrow nathan nation natur naval navi nc near necess necessari need neglect neither nelson network never nevertheless new newli news newspap newtown next nicklin nieuwbeerta night nine nineteenth ninth nisbet noah non non-exclus none nonresist nordyk normal north northern notabl note noth notic notifi notion novel novemb november/december nowher nr nra number numer nytimes.com nyu oak oakland obey object objector oblig observ obsolet obtain occasion occup occupi occur oclc oct octob offenc offer offic offici often oklahoma oliv olr olson onderzoek one one-half ongo onlin oonagh open oper opinion oppon oppos opposit oppress oral order ordin ordinari ordinarili organ origin originalist orthodox other ought outrag outset outsid overcom overnight overrid overthrown overturn overwhelm overzeal own owner ownership oxford oyez oyez.org p p.14 p.222 p.h pacif packag page paid pain paladin paladium palladium pamphlet panel paper papist parad paramilitari paramount paraphras park parker parliament parliamentari part particip particular pass passag past pat path patrick patriot paul pay pdf peac peaceabl pearl pelican pen penalti pennsylvania peopl pepper per perceiv percent percentag perfect perform perfunctorili period perish perkin perman permiss permit persist person persuad pertain pervert peter petit petition petri phase philadelphia philosophi phrase physic pic piec pierc pilot pistol place plain plan pledg plunder plus point poison pol pole polic polici polit politic politician poll pollock polsbi pool poor popul populac popular portion portray pose posess posit poss possess possibl post post-hel post-offic postal postul potenti pouch pound powder powder-horn power pp practic praeger prais prayer pre pre-condit pre-constitut pre-exist pre-revolutionari preambl preced precis predecessor prefatori prefer prepar preposit prescrib presenc present preserv presid press presser presum presumpt pretenc prevail prevent previous primari primarili primer princip principl print prior prison privat privileg prize pro pro-gun probabl problem problemat procedur proceed process produc product prof profession professor profil progress prohibit project prometheus promis proper properti propon proport propos proposit proprieti prosecut protect protest prove proven provid provis proviso provok prudent pub public publish punctuat purchas purport purpos pursu pursuant pursuit put pyrrhic qtd quaker qualif qualifi qualiti quantiti quarrel quarter quell question quick quinlan quit quot r rabban rabbit racist radic rais rakov rang rank rare rate rather ratif ratifi rawl raymond react reaction read reader readi readili reaffirm real realist realiz realli realm reason reassur rebel rebellion receiv recent recit recogn recommend reconsider reconstruct record record-low redress reduc reduct reed refer referenc reflect refut regain regard regim region regist registr regul regular rehear reheard reinforc reinstat reject relat relationship reli relief religi religion reluct remain remand remark remedi rememb remind remov render rene renehan repair repeal repeat repel replac report repres repress reprint repro republ reput request requir requisit research reserv resid resist resolut resolv resort respect respond respons rest restaur restor restrain restraint restrict result retain rethink retriev return reuter rev reveal revers review revisit reviv revolt revolut revolutionari revolv reword reynold rhode rich richard rid rifl right riot rippl rise risen risk rms road robberi robert robertson roger role rome room root rose ross rossi rotesqu round routledg rowman royal rts ruin rule ruler run rutger s.ct sack safe safeguard safer safeti said saint sale samuel samurai san sanction sandi sane sanford santa satisfi saturday saul saw sawed-off saxon say sayoko sc scalia scarc scaro scarola schedul scheme schmidt scholar school schuster schwartz schwoerer scope scotusblog scribe scroggin scrupul scrutin scrutini sea search season second secret secretari section secur sedgwick sedler see seem seen seizur select self self-def self-defens self-evid self-preserv sell seller semi semi-auto semi-militari semicolon senat sens sensit sent sentenc sentiment separ septemb serious serv servic sess session set seton settl settler seventeen seventeenth seventeenth-centuri seventh seventi sever several shall shapiro sharpli shay sheley shelley shelli sheriff sherman shift shoot short shot shot-pouch shotgun shouldn show shunt sic side signif signific silent siloam simeon similar simon simpl simpli sinc singl sir sit situat six sixti size skoien slave slaveri slavish slight slim small smith sneak so-cal societi sold soldier sole solut solv someon sometim soon sophist sort sought sound sourc souter south southern southport sovereignti spare speak spear specif speech spent spirit spiritual spite spitzer sponsor spooner sporad sport spring squir ssrn st st.2 stadium stage stamp stamp-affix stand standard stat state state-organ statement statist statut statutelaw.gov.uk stay steffen stephen steven still stock stop storag store stori strain strategi straw street strength strengthen strict stricter strike strong struck structur struggl stuart student studi style subcommitte subdu subject submit subscrib subsequ subset substant substanti substitut subvert succeed success successor sudden suffic suffici suggest suit suitabl summari summer sunstein suntimes.com superior supplement suppli support suppos suppress suprem supreme.justia.com sure surest sureti surround survey suspect suspici sustain sword syllabus symbol sympath system szatmari take taken takeov tale tame tank target tax taylor teach teacher teachingamericanhistory.org technolog tell tempestu temporal ten tench tend tenn tennesse tent tenth term test testimoni texa text textual th theodor theoret theori theorist thereaft therefor therein thereupon thiev thing think third thirteen thirti thirty-f thoma thompson thomson thorough though thought thousand thousand-pag threat threaten three three-fourth three-judg throughout throw thrown thus tie time timet timothi titl today togeth told toler toni took tool topic total toughen toward town townshend trade tradit train trampl transact transatlant transcrib transfer transport treat treati treatis trend tri trial tribun trigger trigger-lock triumph troop troubl true trust truth tucker turn tushnet twenti twenty-four two two-third type tyrann tyranni u u.c u.n u.s u.s.c ucla ultim un unalien unambigu unanim uncompens unconnect unconstitut uncontroversi und undemocrat undeni undermin understand understood undertak undertaken unequivoc unfortun unfound uniform union uniqu unit univers unjust unknown unlaw unless unlicens unlik unlimit unlist unnecessari unpaid unpersuas unprincipl unreason unregist unspecifi unstabl unten unusu unwork unwritten upheav upheld uphold upkeep upon upris urban us usa usabl usconstitution.net use useless usual usurp uvil v vacat val valparaiso valu van vari various vast vehicl verb verein vernon veronica version versus vessel vest vi vicini victim victori view vigilant vile vindic violat violenc violent virginia vision visit vocal vol volokh volum vote vs w wadsworth wage wait walter want war ward wari warn washington watch watchmen water way weak wealthi weapon weaponri webster week wehr weisselberg welfar well well-regul wellford wellman went west westchest western westport whatev whatsoev whenev wherea wherebi whether white whitehil whoever whole whose wide widespread wikipedia wildlif will william win winchest winkler winter wisconsin wish within without witkin witkin.com wl wm wodc women won word work world wors worship worth worthi would wouldn wright write writer written wrong wrote www.supremecourt.gov www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf x xv y yale year yeomanri yet york young youth