|
|
|
||||||||
 |
SUPREME COURT CASES ON 1998: MUSCARELLO v. UNITED STATES - In the dissent on defining "carries a
firearm", several Justices note that "Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second
Amendment ("keep and bear Arms"). . . ." 1997: PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA v. UNITED STATES - Brady Background Check overturned as unfunded mandate in violation of Tenth Amendment. Justice Thomas requests a Second Amendment case. 1995: U.S. v. LOPEZ - Gun-Free School Zones Overturned as Congress exceeded its powers. 1994: ALBRIGHT v. OLIVER - The court quoted POE v. ULLMAN on how the right to keep and bear arms and other rights are to have, "freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints" under the Fourteenth Amendment. 1992: PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY - The court quoted POE v. ULLMAN on how the right to keep and bear arms and other rights are to have, "freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints" under the Fourteenth Amendment. 1990: PERPICH v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE - National Guard is NOT the militia but part of Armed Forces. Militia divided into "organized" and "unorganized". 1990: UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ - The "people" under the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth & Tenth Amendments are individuals, not the States. 1980: LEWIS v. UNITED STATES - This case notes in a footnote that prohibiting
felons from possessing firearms does not violate the Second Amendment. 1972: ADAMS v. WILLIAMS - In the dissent, Justices Douglas & Marshall took
the portions of U.S. v. MILLER toward preservation of the Militia, but noted that some controls
would be Constitutional, and preferable to "watering-down" the Fourth Amendment in this case. 1969: BURTON v. SILLS - U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to a STATE
licensing law. Even today, the Second Amendment is not applied to the states. 1965: GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT - In a case deciding that Connecticut's birth-control law unconstitutionally intrudes upon the right of marital privacy, Justice Goldberg writes a concurring opinion that, "I have not accepted the view that "due process" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates all of the first eight Amendments ... I do agree that the concept of liberty protects those personal rights that are fundamental, and is not confined to the specific terms of the Bill of Rights." As in other courts, the Second Amendment is listed with personal rights, and not distinguished or excluded as only a collective right. 1965: MARYLAND v. U.S. - The court found that the National Guard is the modern
militia guaranteed to the states under Article
1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution but does not mention what is the Militia under
the Second Amendment. See also HOUSTON v. MOORE. 1964: MALLOY v. HOGAN - The court notes in a footnote that the Second Amendment is one of the rights not yet held applicable to the states through the 14th amendment. 1963: GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT - The court found that Amendments that are, "fundamental safeguards of liberty" are immune from both federal and state "abridgment" under the "Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." GROSJEAN v. AMERICAN PRESS CO. and POWELL v. STATE OF ALABAMA are both cited. 1961: KONIGSBERG v. STATE BAR - The court found that Free Speech and other individual rights are based on rights "transplanted from English soil." The court went on to find Free Speech to be in unqualified terms and "In this connection also compare the equally unqualified command of the Second Amendment: 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'" 1961: POE v. ULLMAN - Lists the "right to keep and bear arms" with "the freedom of speech, press, and religion;" and "the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures." The courts seemless aproach indicates that all are individual rights. 1958: KNAPP v. SCHWEITZER - The court rejected the Fifth Amendment as applying
to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment. "By 1900 the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the States
had been rejected in cases involving claims based on virtually every provision in the first eight Articles of Amendment."
The Court cited U.S. v. CRUIKSHANK for both the First and Second Amendments. 1950: JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER - The Court found that the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply to alien enemies on occupied alien territory. The court listed the Second Amendment as a civil-right along with the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Supreme Court also uses the term "werewolves." 1947: ADAMSON v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA - Justice Black in his dissent notes the many rights not incorporated under the Fourteen Amendment, including the Eighth Amendment, Seventh Amendment, and the Second Amendment's right of the people to keep and bear arms citing PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS. 1939: U.S. v. MILLER - Militia-type weapons covered under Second Amendment/Militia composed of civilians primarily and bearing their own firearms. One Summary of Miller Documents. 1936: GROSJEAN v. AMERICAN PRESS CO. - Citing the findings
from POWELL v. STATE OF ALABAMA , the court wrote, "We
concluded that certain fundamental rights, safeguarded by the first eight amendments against federal action, were
also safe-guarded against state action by the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment...." 1932: POWELL v. STATE OF ALABAMA - This fourteenth amendment case quotes from TWINING v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY about, "the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against national action may also be safeguarded against state action...." 1931: U.S. v. BLAND - A woman's petition for Naturalization is rejected because she is not willing to "bear arms in defense of the U.S." See also UNITED STATES v. SCHWIMMER & U.S. v. MACINTOSH. 1929: UNITED STATES v. SCHWIMMER - A woman's petition for Naturalization is rejected because she was not willing to "take up arms" in defense of the U.S. The court mentioned the right to keep and bear arms and stated, "Whatever tends to lessen the willingness of citizens to discharge their duty to bear arms in the country's defense detracts from the strength and safety of the government." 1915: STEARNS v. WOOD - An officer tried to use the Second Amendment, Tenth Amendment
and other Constitutional protections against limits on promotions in the National Guard, but the court refused
to hear his arguments. 1905: TRONO v. U.S. - In questioning whether an action of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, then a U.S. possession, violated an act of Congress applying most of the Bill of Rights to the Philippines, the court noted that the Act omitted "the provisions in regard to the right of trial by jury and the right of the people to bear arms, . . . . " See also KEPNER v. U.S. 1904: KEPNER v. U.S. - Noted that the act of Congress regarding rights in the Philippines forget several Amendments, including the "the right of the people to bear arms" among several others. See also TRONO v. U.S. 1900: MAXWELL v. DOW - Cited PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS on how "all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government". 1900: U S v. ELDER - The court repeatedly cited Government officials in the 1800s
that provided "notice that they should keep arms sufficient for their defense." 1897: ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN - The court notes that each of the "Bill of Rights" have limitations on those rights, including the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people to keep and bear arms; double jeopardy, etc. 1896: BROWN v. WALKER - In his dissent, Justice Field quoted the counsel for the appellant: "The freedom of thought, of speech, and of the press; the right to bear arms; exemption from military dictation;. . . . . -- are, together with exemption from self-crimination, the essential and inseparable features of English liberty." 1894: MILLER v. TEXAS - Court refused to expand the Second and Fourth Amendment to the States since it was not brought up first during the trail. A very unfortunate trial mistake. 1892: LOGAN v. U.S. - The Court was faced with a question about the scope of the conspiracy statute involved in U.S. v. CRUIKSHANK. The court found that the First and Second Amendments under Cruikshank are not granted by the Constitution, but were both already existing and only a limitation on Congress. This case failed to recognize the Fourteen Amendment (Equal Protection - 1868). 1886: PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS - Second Amendment only a limitation on Congress, not the States. This case failed to recognize the Fourteen Amendment (Equal Protection - 1868). 1875: U.S. v. CRUIKSHANK - First and Second Amendment rights only limitation on
Congress. These rights are not granted by, nor in any manner dependent, upon the Constitution. This case failed
to recognize the Fourteen Amendment (Equal Protection - 1868). 1857: DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD - Slavery kept legal based in part on the fear that freed slaves could "carry arms wherever they went" under the Second Amendment. 1844: THE MALEK ADHEL - A piracy case where the court noted that "All vessels
going to the Pacific carry arms for defence." 1803: MARBURY v. MADISON - The court found that the Constitution is the "superior, paramount law" of the land and that "a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
|
|||||||
