Criminal Cases dealing with the Second Amendment.

[Finch]

Hope this fits the rules...

I'm taking a constitutional law class in college, and we have a paper to write. We have to find a criminal case that deals with one of the Bill of Rights. To be a little more specific, using one of the Bill of Rights as a 'precedent' of sorts. So me being me, I choose the 2nd amendment, but I am having a hard time finding a criminal case in which the second amendment was used. I would really prefer to find a case that would show the second amendment in a good light. So, does anyone know of a case that fits here?

Thanks in advanced for the help.

 

[Mark Tyson]

Do you need a supreme court case? Miller vs. US (1939?) is the most recent dealing with the 2nd amendment, and the one most relevant to the current debate. It dealt with a short barrel shotgun and the National Firearms Act of 1934, which required the registration of machine guns, silencers and short barrel shotguns/rifles.

 

[Old Fuff]

U.S. v. Emerson

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm

 

[Open Carry]

Take a look at this: Supreme Court Gun Cases

Send Mr. Korwin an e-mail. I'm sure that he will be happy to help you out.

 

[pax]

Fits best in the forum devoted to laws and politics, so I'm moving it over there for you.

Hope you get lots of good help.

pax

 

[TexasVet]

Check out the actual decision in the Dred Scott case. One of the reasons the court found that a runaway slave could not be a citizen was the fact that then no one could prevent him from carrying a gun. Bad overall decision as far as slavery goes, but interesting about the gun part.

 

[scottgun]

Rick Stanley, a Colorado Libertarian ran for US Senate in 2002. He held a Freedom Rally in which he openly carried a pistol. He was arrested. In court he used the 2nd Amendment as an affirmative defense. The judge ordered that he would be held in contempt of court if he mentioned the 2nd Amendment again.

Quote:
The defendant and his attorney report that the judge said, "Then I'll explain it again. You are not to reference the Constitution in these proceedings. You will not address it in voir dire, you will not address it in your opening remarks, you will not ask any questions about the Constitution when you summon your witnesses, and you will not talk about the Constitution when you give your closing arguments. Do you understand my instructions?"

http://www.stanley2002.org/releases/release071003-2.htm

More of an example of how Denver ignores the it's State Constitution and the US Constitution.

Check out the links from his home page. Many examples of Constitutional abuses. This guy is a little "out there". But at least someone is taking a stand publicly. Might make for an interesting report. Good luck.

 

[Jim March]

Go here:

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/Self-Defense-Cases.htm

 

[Mark Tyson]

The judge wouldn't let him argue the constitutonality of gun laws in his opening and closing statements? What on earth . . . ?

 

[scottgun]

Mark, this case is a little over a year old, and was discussed on THR. But yes, Judge Patterson stated that if ANY mention to the US or State Constitution was made in court, that the defense would be held in contempt of court.

It has to do with Denver calling itself a 'home rule' city, meaning that they can make their own laws and ignore the Rights protected by the United States Constitution.

Many people here strongly disagree with Rick Stanley and his actions and views, and I agree that he has gone off the deep end. But beyond that, you have to admit that he got a raw deal in the Denver court house with not being able to cite the US Constitution as an affirmative defense.

Old news, but still an interesting case.

 

[Mark Tyson]

Denver is a "home rule" city?

Does that mean that they can sentence people to public flogging or shut down newspapers that criticize the city council?

I've never heard such nonsense.

Somebody needs a good kick in the . . .

 

[Langenator]

Judge Patterson stated that if ANY mention to the US or State Constitution was made in court, that the defense would be held in contempt of court.

If I were the defense lawyer, that would generate an immediate complaint/case referal (whatever the legal term is) to the state's judicial review board, or whatever agency it is that oversees and disciplines judges, as well as any relevant judicial committees in both houses of the state legislature.

It has to do with Denver calling itself a 'home rule' city, meaning that they can make their own laws and ignore the Rights protected by the United States Constitution.

Seems to me that South Carolina and a few other states tried to declare themselves "home rule states" about 140 or so years ago. Maybe Denver needs to learn the same lesson.

you have to admit that he got a raw deal in the Denver court house with not being able to cite the US Constitution as an affirmative defense.

Any lawyer worth his law school diploma would have appealed the case.