一个管理良好的民兵,对于自由国家的安全是必要的,人民有权保留和携带武器,不应受到侵犯。现在美国受到训练有素的志愿军队而不是民兵的保护,第二修正案仍然有效吗? “第二修正案”是否专门为供给民用民兵提供武器,还是保证单独承担武器的普遍权利?在DC诉Heller案(2008年)之前,美国最高法院从未就第二修正案理由废除枪支管制法。通常被引用与第二修正案最相关的两个案例是:US诉Cruikshank(1875),其中美国最高法院驳回了1870年联邦法律,该法律以侵犯他人民事权利的方式惩罚个人,使用第十四修正案来证明其合理性联邦政府对执法的干预(一般留给各州)。测试案例是1873年的科尔法克斯大屠杀,其中有超过100名非洲裔美国人被白人联盟谋杀,白人联盟是一个激进的白人至上主义组织,在美国内战后几十年里在路易斯安那州非常活跃。首席大法官莫里森韦特发表了一项裁决,称该法律违宪。虽然该案件与第二修正案没有直接关系,但韦特确实简要列出了一项个人在拥有联邦法律保护的权利中携带武器的权利。美国诉米勒(1939年),其中两名银行劫匪违反1934年“国家枪械法”,在州界线上运送了一把锯掉的霰弹枪。在银行劫匪对第二修正案的法律提出质疑后,詹姆斯·C·麦克雷诺德法官交付了多数裁决称第二修正案与其案件无关,部分原因是锯掉的霰弹枪不是美国民兵使用的标准武器。

新加坡国立大学法学论文代写:国家枪械法

A well-managed militia is necessary for the security of a free country. The people have the right to retain and carry weapons and should not be violated. Now that the United States is protected by a well-trained volunteer army rather than a militia, is the Second Amendment still valid? Does the “Second Amendment” specifically provide weapons for the supply of civilian militias, or does it guarantee the universal right to bear weapons alone? Prior to DC v. Heller (2008), the US Supreme Court never abolished the gun control law for the Second Amendment. The two cases most commonly cited in relation to the Second Amendment are: US v. Cruikshank (1875), in which the US Supreme Court rejected the 1870 federal law, which punishes individuals in a manner that infringes on the civil rights of others, using the fourteenth amendment. Case to justify its federal government intervention in law enforcement (generally reserved for states). The test case was the 1873 Colfax massacre in which more than 100 African-Americans were murdered by the White Alliance, a radical white supremacist organization that was in Louise for decades after the American Civil War. The state is very active. Chief Justice Morrison Wetter issued a ruling stating that the law is unconstitutional. Although the case was not directly related to the Second Amendment, Wetter did briefly outline the right of an individual to carry weapons in the right to be protected by federal law. The United States v. Miller (1939), in which two bank robbers violated the 1934 “National Firearms Act” and carried a sawn off shotgun on the state line. After the bank robbers questioned the law of the Second Amendment, Judge James C. McLeodold delivered a majority ruling that the Second Amendment had nothing to do with the case, in part because the sawgun that was cut off was not the standard used by the American militia. arms.

发表评论

电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注