Purpose Of A Shall-Issue Law

One can imagine how this law will be at conflict in a may-issue jurisdiction as the discretion to determine who carries a firearm is taken away from the hands of the issue officer, since the individual already has a permit from another state. Most states currently extend reciprocal concealed carry privileges to varying degrees to residents of other states. Fourteen states extend outright recognition to all valid permits issued in another state, ten states automatically recognize permits from other states that recognize theirs, and sixteen states recognize other state issued permits when certain conditions are met. Only ten states do not allow permits issued by another state no matter the circumstance, while many of the states allow non-residents to apply for permits to carry a concealed handgun in the state (House report 112-277). Gun control is a hotly debated issue in America. While pro-gun right advocates will see a vibrant gun-right law as a good thing, those that advocate for a stricter gun laws to reduce the amount of firearms in circulation would rather have laws to that effect. Understanding the forces underlying the transformation from a May-issue to a Shall-issue state is important as that will set us on course to see the trend firearm legislation has taken in other states and that will enable us to predict the future of gun law in the state of Texas.

​In his book ‘Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America,’ Wrinkler tried to present an unbiased view towards the second amendment in the light of historical events and landmark cases that has tried to challenge or obtain the court’s interpretation. One of such cases is the ‘District of Columbia v. Heller’ case, which was argued and decided in 2008 (Supreme Court of the United States). For several instances, the provision in the Second Amendment that pertains to the right of an individual to bear arms has been contested. In fact, the clause, which states that “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”, is perhaps the most misconstrued clause in the American constitution (Supreme Court of the United States). Adding to the significance of this highly debatable clause is the fact that a flurry of gun related incidences has happened in the United States in the past that has taken many lives including that of children. Among the most significant authors that has attempted to answer the question or at least laid out the possibilities regarding the second amendment is Adam Wrinkler. In light of Winkler’s arguments as well as with other sources, this paper will examine the historical

Heller was a police officer and applied for a permit to keep a handgun and his home and that application was denied by the police chief so Mr. Heller filed a lawsuit against the District of Columbia. He stated that his second amendment rights were violated because he had the right to bear arms and he should be able to keep a weapon in his home without having to get a permit. The district court dismissed Mr. Heller's case but the Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. Heller and said the second amendment allows him to use a firearm to protect himself in his home for the purpose of self-defense and that the District of Columbia's law violated his rights. The final decision of the case was 5 to 4 with the majority of the opinion coming from Justice Antonin Scalia this case was decided in favor of Mr. Heller and the second amendment on June 26, 2008. This means that citizens living in Washington DC will be able to have firearms in their home to protect themselves this case will be looked at many times over in the years to come because every time we have a shooting it all boils down to gun rights. It's always the law-abiding citizen that has to go through more scrutiny because someone got a gun that they shouldn't have in the first place so the answer is more background tracks and restrictions on buying

District of Columbia v. Heller is a Supreme Court case that was heard in 2008 by the court. The respondent was a D. C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. The respondent, Heller, filed a lawsuit to challenge District of Columbia handgun laws that prohibited the carrying of handguns without a license and requirements that licensed firearms kept in homes must be kept nonfunctional.

Heller there was another Supreme Court case called McDonald V. Chicago. In this case the U.S supreme court had to rule on if in fact the Second Amendment right which declares,” 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”, applies to the states of the U.S. In the city of Chicago prohibited a person from possessing any kind of fire arm unless the person had a “legal” registration for the gun. The clause of this rule that made it questionable to the person’s legal rights is that the law made it so that registrations of most handguns were prohibited. This therefore making it illegal to own many hand guns, violating a person’s right to bear arms yet again. A group of people took this to court claiming that the ban on hand guns made it so that they were exposed to criminals therefore they couldn’t protect them self. The group filed a claim that there second and fourteenth amendment rights were being violated. Chicago stated that Heller, the case in 2008 stated above, did not say that the ruling thet had made applied to any state. Rose states that in the court had to rule on “whether the right to bear arms was a fundamental right protected by the constitution and therefore applicable to the

In light of many recent mass shootings, like the shooting in San Bernardino, the topic of gun control and gun violence have been highly debated in the United States. Many state and local government have taken the responsibility into their own hands, placing bans on certain types of guns deemed most dangerous. This has sparked controversy in the U.S. because of the fact that the right to ?bear arms? is a 2nd Amendment right found in the constitution. The Supreme Court has only heard one case involving individual gun rights, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which they ruled that the state and local government could not take away the individual right to own a gun. Despite the contradicting laws barring guns in certain locations and allowing guns in

Only two cases in the last sixty-five years have been tried by the Supreme Court regarding gun regulations and the right to keep and bear arms. Both of these cases have ended similarly, 5-4 votes in favor gun rights activists. Justices who dissented wrote that owning a firearm for personal use was not a "liberty" interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Other Justices wrote that there is nothing in the Second Amendment's "text, history, or underlying rationale" that characterizes it as a "fundamental right" warranting incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment (Mcdonald v. Chicago Oyez.com). Much of the debate in these cases is whether owning a firearm for personal use is a “fundamental right” granted

The Supreme Court ruled on June 28th that the 2nd Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms applies on state and city levels. The 5-4 decision along ideological lines echoed 2008's decision to strike down DC's handgun ban, citing the 14th Amendment as a major factor in the decision to extend the federal right to own a hand gun for personal protection down to local levels. Though it officially returned McDonald v. City of Chicago to the lower courts for a decision, it is expected that Chicago's 28 year old handgun ban will be overturned, and that legislation against handgun restrictions in other states will be legally challenged for years to come.

Imagine this, you reside in the year two-thousand and eight. You live in southeast D.C. near Kentucky Courts, you have since nineteen-seventy. Your job must be as a licensed special police officer for the District of Columbia and your job requires you to carry a gun on you in all federal office buildings. Even though, you get to hold a gun on the job you seem to not be allowed to even have one in your own home because of the gun ban of in District of Columbia. The D.C. v Heller established the right to own a gun, protect yourself from harm, and carry

However, in recent times, it has become more apparent that individual rights of gun owners has become an increasingly problematic issue in terms of redefining the terms of the Second Amendment through the individual perspective. the Supreme Court has reversed this decision to make more individual concession for gun owners outside of well-regulated state militias. More so, gun lobby groups, such as The National Rifle Association, have funded political groups in the U.S. government to reverse the underlying military aspects of the Second Amendment in terms of gun ownership. This is one way in which legal decision, such as those of Supreme Court, have come to realize the more individual aspects of gun ownership through a gun rights perspective in recent years. The District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) decision is one example of the growing reversal of Constitutional law that extends gun rights outside of domestic military

The Second Amendment is important because it provides self defense to American citizens. In some states, like Arizona, you can carry a gun around without a permit, if you’re an adult. But if someone wants to have his or hers gun concealed, then they are required to have a permit.”Forty-two states generally require a state-issued permit in order to carry concealed weapons in public (“CCW” permit).” (Hardy, States That Allow Concealed Carry). The 8 other states that allow concealed carry without a permit are Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. But in some form, 7 out of the 8

The District of Columbia is the central hub of the United States government. It is a place where the nations top elected officials work daily, but it is also a proving ground for laws that could be deemed unconstitutional, such as the restriction of concealed carry permits to those residents, who “demonstrate a “good reason to fear injury.” There was a ban on all guns within the District of Columbia until 2008, when the Supreme Court filed its opinion in the case of District of Columbia versus Heller. The battle over gun rights is one that has only been inflamed in recent years as more media attention is devoted to firearm related incidents. The concealed carry laws within the District of Columbia are some of the strictest in the United States having only approved eighty-eight people for permits while declining the applications of over three-hundred. On September 20th, oral arguments will be made in front of a panel comprised of three judges. In court filings the gun rights activists are citing the fact that the District’s requirement to show extraordinary threat is unconstitutional.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” A gun license grants a user the right to own and use a firearm. Gun-right supporters strongly oppose federally mandated licensing or registration. They see both as dangerous steps toward revoking Second Amendment rights. They say that with mandated licensing or registration, a right guaranteed by the Constitution becomes a privilege granted by the government (Doeden). The topic of gun control/rights in the United States has a long history, which some see as unconstitutional, and could easily be relaxed by requiring background checks.

Gun control infringes on the Second Amendment right of the American people.  The Second Amendment reads, "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" (Adams).  In researching gun control, the government is not sure which way to enforce the law because they can not determine the fair interpretation of the amendment.  Even though gun control is suppose to reduce fire arm related crimes, it only makes it harder for law abiding citizens, or officers of the law to attain guns.  According to Hogberg there was a specific case of Heller vs. Washington D.C. that made a huge impact.  Dick Heller was asked to defend the people of D.C. against the government to gain the rights to own a hand gun.  The right of owning a hand gun in Washington D.C. was revoked in the early 1970's, but in 1976 an incident of a shooting changed

The distinction between judicial activism and judicial restraint may seem very prominent and clear cut now, yet the 2010 McDonald v. the city of Chicago case arguably uses both approaches. On June 28th, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled (5-4), that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” applies to state and local government as well as to the federal government (BRITTANICA). The suit was filed to challenge the provisions of a 1982 Chicago law that generally banned the new registration of handguns and made registration a prerequisite to owning a firearm. This case is the perfect example to showcase how judicial restraint and activism both act on the outcome of a case.