Limiting Constitutional Rights to Bear Arms
The capital issue in the hypothetical court case detailed within Application 1.2 is the boundaries for limitations on the personal right to bear arms. Those boundaries are unclear in this case, because the defendant is exercising his right to bear arms as denoted within the second amendment to the United States Constitution. However, this person (known as Lloyd) has stockpiled enough arms that his store is dangerous to others living around him, which is why they have sued Lloyd claiming that his actions under the second amendment violate their constitutional rights. Specifically, they are claim Lloyd is infringing their rights outlined in the fifth and ninth amendments to the constitution. The relevance of these amendments to this case is that the fifth amendment states no person should suffer the loss of their life or property, whereas the ninth mandates that rights granted in the Constitution (and in its amendments) should not cause an infringement of the rights of others. The core of the matter, then, is whether Lloyd's rights to bear arms infringe upon the ninth amendment rights of his neighbors, which states that granting constitutional rights to others should not impinge upon the rights of anyone. The fifth amendment is the basis for Lloyd's neighbors claiming his rights to bear arms are infringing on their right to own property safely.
Rule
The general rule which is applicable to this case is the ninth amendment, which is readily paraphrased as the listing of certain rights in the Constitution should not impede upon or reduce the rights of other people as guaranteed by that same document.
Analysis
When applying the ninth amendment to the fifth amendment rights guaranteed to Lloyd's neighbors and which they claim he is violating by exercising his right to bear arms under the second amendment, it is pivotal to understand the nature of Lloyd's activities and how they apply to the second amendment. The Constitution allows for private citizens to bear arms. However, it...
Constitutional Rights of Prisoners The hands off doctrine that existed throughout the United States through the 1960s was the notion that the law did not apply to prisoners. It Convicted offenders, who were incarcerated, were not eligible for the same rights that applied to liberated U.S. citizens. The doctrine mandated that prisoners had forfeited those rights when they were convicted of whatever crime they committed. This doctrine made it impossible for
For example in "Bonita P. Bourke, et al. v. Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A.," (California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, Case No. B068705, July 26, 1993). The plaintiffs said the company's review of e-mail messages over a company system constituted an invasion of their right of privacy in violation of both the California Constitution and common law. But the court found that plaintiffs lacked a reasonable, objective expectation
However, the courts did find that police officers at any time may be forced to appear in a lineup, although this constituted a seizure of the officer's physical person. Explain how the free exercise of religion can pose problems for criminal justice administrators. Police work requires individuals to assume certain duties, at certain times, which may conflict with religious prohibitions and proscriptions. Officers must work weekend and night shifts and also
Griswold appealed her conviction, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses prohibited the anti-contraceptive legislation. The Supreme Court agreed. While the Court acknowledged that the Constitution never explicitly mentions privacy, it argued that it was clear, from looking at provisions of the Constitution, which it was meant to protect privacy. The concurring opinions, while not expressing the majority of the Court, argued that the Ninth
(The Sixth Amendment, http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/p/6th_amendment.htm. Retrieved 6 December 2009.) The Fourteenth Amendment, although not (obviously) a part of the Bill of Rights, presents rights that are as central to our democracy as those outlined in the Bill of Rights, including an expansion of the definition of citizenship to include the slaves freed after the Civil War, and what is known as the "due process" clause. This clause argues that the government
In the case of Bowers v. Hardwick the United States Supreme Court failed to strike down Georgia's sodomy laws, as they applied to homosexuals, because rather than treat the matter as one of privacy rights, the court instead viewed the case from the perspective of whether there existed within the United States and its traditions, a right to engage in homosexual activity. In the Supreme Court's opinion, privacy in this
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now