|
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, |
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- Second Amendment |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Click here to view all Second Amendment Foundation |
||
SAF Internet Resources
Contact Your Senator
Contact Your Rep.
Contacting Us
Journalist's
Guide to
Gun Scholars
Database Search
E-mail Server Help
Leave Your Mark
Online Articles
Gottlieb-Tartaro Report
Hindsight Column
W&G Editorials
Legal Issues
Kopel SAF Newsletter
General Right to Keep &
Bear Arms
Madison Awards
Journal on Firearms
and Public Policy
General Interest
News and Releases
SAF Book List
Mirrored Archives
Congressional Info.
RKBA Internet Links
Sponsored Publications
Gun Week
Gottlieb-Tartaro Report
Women & Guns
SUPREME COURT CASES ON SECOND AMENDMENT, GUNS & OTHER RELATED ISSUES
2001: KYLLO v. UNITED STATES - This important Fourth Amendment case barred the use of high-tech heat scanning devices on a home to look for evidence of pot growing, has good language in both the majority and minority opinions. The majority thought that such devices constituted a search. The minority felt that since the device reads the exterior walls, and does not scan into the house, it was okay. However, applying this rule to the remote gun-detector devices that are being created indicates that since it scans UNDER the clothes, it would likely be deemed a search by all Justices.
2000: CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS et al. v. EDMOND et al. - This decision overturned a complete roadblock looking for drugs. This decision could help prevent a similar "gun checkpoint" in some of the more gun-grabbing type jurisdictions.
2000: APPRENDI v. NEW JERSEY - The court ruled that the Sixth Amendment bars judges from going above the statutory maximum sentence by using extra evidence, which may include motive, weapon used or volume of drugs sold.
2000: DICKERSON v. UNITED STATES - This decision upheld the previous MIRANDA v. ARIZONA decision on the rights of defendant to "remain silent......" This case could help the Fifth Amendment arguments in the U.S. v. EMERSON (federalizing too many crimes, Second & Fifth Amendments).
2000: UNITED STATES v. MORRISON et al. - A portion of the Federal 1994 Violence Against Women Act was struck down because Congress exceeded its authority. This latest ruling expands on the earlier ruling in U.S. v. LOPEZ. These two decisions could help in both the U.S. v. EMERSON case (federalizing too many crimes, Second & Fifth Amendments) and SAF's lawsuit against the Clinton/Gore so-called 'assault weapon' and magazine ban (exceeding powers).
2000: JONES v. UNITED STATES - A unanimous Supreme Court threw out an Indiana man's federal conviction for setting fire to his own cousin's home. The private residence was ruled NOT to be part of Interstate Commerce just because it was hooked up to natural gas in interstate commerce or had a mortgage from an out-of-state bank. Like UNITED STATES v. MORRISON et al. & U.S. v. LOPEZ. , this decision could help in both the U.S. v. EMERSON case and SAF's lawsuit against the Clinton/Gore so-called 'assault weapon' and magazine ban (exceeding powers).
2000: FLORIDA v. J. L. - In a rare unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a "bare-bone" anonymous tip is not enough to stop and search a person for a concealed weapon.
1999: SAENZ v. ROE - In this welfare case, the court finds that the Fourteenth Amendment prevents both the Federal and State Government from violating "other specific provisions of the Constitution."
1998: BRYAN v. UNITED STATES - Court held that the term "willfully" is essentially equal to "knowingly" in the Gun Control Act of 1968, even though both terms were used, and thus invalidated part of the reforms in the Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986.1998: CARON v. U.S. - A felon's right to own firearms is not restored under state law until the state allows him or her to own ANY firearm, and therefore the person can be prosecuted federally, even if the possessed firearm is of the type allowed under state law.
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"). . . ."
1998: SPENCER v. KEMNA - In his dissent, Justice Stevens noted that a conviction "may result in tangible harms such as imprisonment, loss of the right to vote or to 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.
1997: UNITED STATES v. VERNON WATTS - The court decided that facts underlying a crime for which a defendant was acquitted can still be used by the judge to give a longer sentence, if the judge finds them to be true by a lower evidentiary standard.
1995: BAILEY v. UNITED STATES - The court found that the mere "possession" of a firearm is not sufficient to receive an enhanced penalty for "use" of a firearm under federal drug trafficking laws.
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.1994: BEECHAM v. U.S. - Court said that only the Federal Government can restore firearms rights for a federal conviction. This program is not currently funded.
1994: STAPLES v. U.S. - The court decided that in order to convict someone under the National Firearms Act of possessing an unregistered (untaxed) weapon, they must prove the defendant knew it was the sort of gun regulated by the NFA.
1993: SMITH v. U.S. - Court held that offering a firearm as a medium of exchange falls under the law enhancing one's sentence for "use" a firearm in a drug crime.
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.
1992: UNITED STATES v. THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS CO., - Like STAPLES v. U.S., is an examination of the meaning of the National Firearms Act. The court decided that the definition of a Short Barreled Rifle (SBR) was vague, and gave it narrow definition in favor of the taxpayer, T/C. However, the National firearms Act WOULD APPLY to a fully assembled SBR as well as in cases where all the parts had only one use, to make a SBR.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.
1987: CHURCH of SCIENTOLOGY v. IRS - Tax returns cannot be released, even under the Freedom of Information Act. This is important to gun owners since NFA transfer forms are treated by BATF as tax returns.
1986: DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY v. GALIOTO - This case on firearms rights relief was made moot during appeals due to 1986 changes to the Gun Control Act of 1968. Federal relief from disability is now the same for everyone, yet the office is unfunded and therefore closed.1985: TENNESSEE v. GARNER - Supreme Court overturns the Tennessee law allowing police to shoot any fleeing felon.
1984:1984: U.S. v. ONE ASSORTMENT OF 89 FIREARMS - The court decides that an acquittal in a prosecution for violating the Gun Control Act does not prohibit the Federal Government from trying to seize the guns in question under civil proceedings for the exact same reason(s).
1983: DICKERSON v. NEW BANNER INSTITUTE, Inc. - This decision holds that a person who receives a deferred sentence and expunction of his record on a state level (rights restored) is still eligible for prosecution on the federal level. Congress overruled this case in 1986 to expressly indicate that a state conviction was governed by state law.
1980: LEWIS v. UNITED STATES - This case notes in a footnote that prohibiting felons from possessing firearms does not violate the Second Amendment.
1977: MOORE v. EAST CLEVELAND - 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.
1977: SCARBOROUGH v. U.S. - A gun owner must remove all guns from his or her possession upon being convicted as a felon or face becoming instantly guilty of violating 1202(a).1976: BARRETT v. U.S. - A person can be prosecuted for violating the Gun Control Act of 1968 for any firearm that has, at some point in its life, moved from one state to another.
1975: UNITED STATES v. POWELL - The court upholds the federal law declaring pistols, revolvers and other firearms concealable on the person as "nonmailable", including that the law wasn't unconstitutionally vague.
1974: HUDDLESTON v. U.S. - The court decides that when one goes to retrieve a gun back from a pawn shop, one has to fill out the 4473, and can be prosecuted for lying on the 4473 about your felon status.
1973: ROE v. WADE - 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.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.
1972: LAIRD v. TATUM - The court quoted Chief Justice Warren on how "fear and concern of military dominance" gave rise to the Second and Third Amendments and a decentralized militia." The right to keep and bear arms is also listed with other individual rights.1972: UNITED STATES v. BISWELL - The court upheld the warrantless search of FFL's under the Gun Control Act, against a 4th Amendmeent challenge. This case explains the "administrative search" concept, in areas considered to be "pervasively regulated".
1971: UNITED STATES v. BASS - This case concerns the same issue as in US v. SYNNES, whether the gun possessed by a felon for which he is prosecuted needs to have moved in interstate commerce, or otherwise be connected to interstate commerce. This court decided the text of the law suggested an interstate commerce nexus while ducking the Constitutional issue of banning mere possession of firearms.
1971: UNITED STATES v. FREED - This case re-examined the NFA after the revisions of 1968 and HAYNES v. U.S., and found it did not violate the 5th Amendment like the old NFA since all the NFA records are kept private and cannot be released to the States.
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.
1968: DUNCAN v. LOUISIANA - Court quotes Senator Howard, who introduced the Fourteenth Amendment for passage in the Senate, discussing why to pass the Amendment. Sen. Howard included "the right to keep and to bear arms" with other individual rights.1968: HAYNES v. U.S. - This decision held that part of the original NFA of 1934 was unconstitutional because it was illegal to possess an unregistered NFA weapon, but the law punished you if you failed to report a gun, AND also punished you (or potentially did) if you did report a gun. This violated the 5th amendment prohibition on compelled self-incrimination.
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: BELL v. MARYLAND - In a footnote on Black Codes, the court noted how "Negroes were not allowed to bear arms or to appear in all public places".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.
1957: LAMBERT v. CALIFORNIA, 355 U.S. 225 (1957) - This case creates an exemption allowing for "ignorance of the law" to be an excuse for "wholly passive" and blameless acts. This was utilized in the recent U.S. v. EMERSON decision.
1957: GREEN v. UNITED STATES - Mentions how President Taft stated that the Philippine people secured "all the guaranties of our Bill of Rights except trial by jury and the right to bear arms." See also KEPNER v. U.S. and TRONO v. U S.
1952: MORISSETTE v. U.S. - An interesting analysis of "criminal intent". Compare this discussion to the STAPLES case.
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.
1947: GIROUARD v. U.S. Reverses BLAND, MACINTOSH and SCHWIMMER because of "affirmative action taken by Congress in 1942".
1944: FOLLETT v. TOWN OF McCORMICK, S.C., - In a ruling that has been criticized repeatedly according to Lexis, the Court held that requiring a licensing tax of a constitutional right is unconstitutional. As in MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA (1943), this case involved distributing religious materials.1943: MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA - In a ruling that has been criticized repeatedly according to Lexis, the Court held that a license tax on the distribution of religious materials is unconstitutional. "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution." See also FOLLETT v. TOWN OF McCORMICK, S.C., (1944).
1943: SCHNEIDERMAN v. UNITED STATES - An interesting look into the Communist agenda, including "Our slogan must be: 'Arming of the proletariat, to conquer, expropriate and disarm the bourgeoisie.' Only after the conquest, "throw all arms on the scrap heap."
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.
1937: SONZINSKY v. U.S. - This narrow case upheld the Constitutionality of the special occupational tax (SOT) of dealers in NFA weapons based on the concept that as long as it facially raises revenue, it is fine.
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...."
1934: HAMILTON v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIF. - School's requirement for military training for all male students is upheld as constitutional, citing "duty" to "support and defend government against all enemies."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.
1931: U.S. v. MACINTOSH - A man's petition for Naturalization is rejected because he is not willing to "bear arms in defense of the U.S." See also U.S. v. BLAND and UNITED STATES v. SCHWIMMER.
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."
1928: OLMSTEAD v. U.S. - An interesting Fourth and Fifth Amendment case regarding wiretapping. Justice Brandeis in a strong dissent stated, "If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."1923: U.S. v. CARVER - The Court held that it means NOTHING when the Supreme Court fails to hear a case. "The denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times." In the U.S. v. EMERSON case, however, the Government claimed that while "technically" true, if the Supreme Court disagreed with all the lower courts since U.S. v. MILLER, it would have done so. Such false and bold declarations could force the Supreme Court to finally take a Second Amendment Case soon.
1922: BAILEY v. DREXEL FURNITURE CO. - The court found that taxes must have revenue as their primary motive, and regulation through punitive taxes are unconstitutional. Furthermore, the court warned that "The good sought in unconstitutional legislation is an insidious feature. . . . " because it leads people to promote it without thoughts of the negative imacts on society. Often mispelled "Drexall."
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.1908: TWINING v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY - The Court concluded that the privilege against self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment) wasn't incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, nor are other personal rights including the 7th Amendment, "and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2d Amendment" citing PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS.
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."
1900: THE PANAMA - The court recognized that a ship carries guns and cannons for "self-defense" and quoted from Portalis, "defense is a natural right, and means of defense are lawful in voyages at sea, as in all other dangerous occupations of life". However, this did not apply to enemy property like the Panama.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).
1869: UNITED STATES V. DEWITT - Prohibition on producing certain oils is in fact a police regulation, relating exclusively to the internal trade of the States. Therefore, the Federal law only affects areas outside the States, such as the District of Columbia.
1866: CUMMINGS v. STATE OF MISSOURI - An interesting look a Civil War History. The Court "The loyal citizens of the State were obliged to array themselves against its government; they did so; they took up arms against it; they seized its camp and overthrew its forces. Had it not been for this act of hostility the State might have been drawn into the abyss of secession. It was, therefore, an act which was not only lawful but which was required of the citizen by his allegiance to the United States."
1866: EX PARTE MILLIGAN - The court discounted the notion that The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments were limitations on "war-making" powers. Similarly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms would not "hinder the President from disarming insurrectionists, rebels, and traitors in arms while he was carrying on war against them."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.
1856: SOUTH v. MARYLAND - Court held that lawsuits alleging neglect of refusal by the sheriff to perserve the public peace is not a sufficient cause of action. Summary is here. Future cases found that local law enforcement officers had only a general duty to enforce laws, not to protect a particular person. See also WARREN v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and BOWERS v. DeVITO listed in APPEALS & DISTRICT COURTS.
1849: LUTHER v. BORDEN - A case involving martial law and possible rights violations.
1844: THE MALEK ADHEL - A piracy case where the court noted that "All vessels going to the Pacific carry arms for defence."
1820: HOUSTON v. MOORE - This case seems to distinguish the Militia powers under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and "the right to keep and bear arms." Future decisions only mention one provision or the other. See also MARYLAND v. U.S.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."
|
|
