Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

District of Columbia v. Heller

No description
by

Cody Long

on 5 November 2012

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of District of Columbia v. Heller

June 26, 2008 Presentation By: Cody Long District of Columbia v. Heller Facts of the case This case was very important because it was
in violation to our Second Amendment. The
Second Amendment defines our Rights to Bear
Arms. This means we can buy and poccess fire
arms. Facts of the Case This case is important because it has a lot to do with our second amendment. The second amendment states that it is lawful to own a gun for self defense or hunting purposes. This was the first time in seventy years that the supreme court had a case in question of the second amendment. The District of Columbia passed legislation barring registration of handguns. It made owners require licenses for all pistols, and securing that all legal firearms must be kept unloaded or trigger locked, a group of gun-owners brought a suit claiming the laws violated their Second Amendment. The second amendment is the right to bear arms. The federal trial court in Washington refused to grant the plaintiffs relief.They stated that the Second Amendment applies only to militias, such as the National Guard, and not to private gun owners. The Court voted with Heller 5:4. The Court held
that individuals rights to own firearms is protected
by the second amendment. Justice Breyer agreed with Stevens' argument. He also stated that even if possession were to be allowed for other reasons, any law that regulates the use of firearms would have to be "unreasonable or inappropriate" to violate the Second Amendment. The Constitutional Issue. The Constitutional Issue was that Heller stated that his rights of the second amendment had been violated. The second amendment gives US citizens the legal right to own, sell, and possess guns. It is stated like this in the Constitution "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". Congress voted to change it to "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". One reason for this change is this case. Congress decided they needed to extend the meaning of the Second Amendment. Supreme Court's Decision The Supreme Court's ruling was 5:4 with Heller. The
Supreme Court concluded that it was legal for a PERSON to possess a firearm for lawful purposes such as self defense. The Majority Opinion The majority opinion stated that it was legal for a citizen to own and possess a firearm. The main point is that the second amendment is "outdated" and the new version is more current. The majority opinion was written by Justice Scalia. Chief Justices Robert, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito voted along with him. Dissenting Opinion The dissenting opinion was that the Second Amendment was only dealing with a militia such as the National Guard instead of an individual. Breyer and Stephens wrote the dissent. Souter and Ginsburg also voted with the minority. Reasons for being important The reason this case is so important is because this case challenges the Second Amendment. The Justices was correct that the Second Amendment needs to be revised. A well-regulated militia is an outdated way to state gun ownership. It IS our right to LEGALLY own and possess firearms and weapons. This is a very important part of the Constitution and it would be Unconstitutional to take this right away from law abiding citizens.
Full transcript