Amendment+2

media type="google" key="-2762813556293334249&hl=en&fs=true" width="400" height="326"Amendment 2- The right to bare arms

http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/jonfoote/dali/other/Beararms.jpg

II Amendment http://www.gunlawsuits.org/docket/casestatus.php?RecordNo=55 //Seegars v. Ashcroft// //In Seegars, the National Rifle Association unsuccessfully backed a challenge to the same District of Columbia law restricting handgun possession at issue in Parker, basing its arguments on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Emerson v. United States, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 907 (2002). In Emerson, two judges stated their belief that individuals have a Second Amendment right to gun ownership for personal purposes unrelated to service in a "well-regulated militia."// //The Brady Center filed an amicus brief arguing that the court must follow the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to possess firearms for purposes unrelated to the "well regulated Militia" of the States. The Brady Center's brief helped expose the Emerson court's errors, pointing to recent historical scholarship that indicates that the Second Amendment was fully grounded in service in the "well-regulated Militia" in place when the Bill of Rights was ratified.// //The Federal D.C. District Court agreed, ruling that, "The Second Amendment does not confer an individual a right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias." Plaintiffs appealed the judge's ruling and the D.C. Circuit dismissed the appeal. The court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the statute as none of the plaintiffs faced imminent criminal prosecution.//

A riffle association was caught with a gun for personal purposes. They challenged the Supreme Court that they had the right to own a gun due to the II Amendment. But when the Supreme Court came to a decision, they stated, “the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to possess firearms for purposes unrelated to the ‘well regulated Militia.’”

Klein v. Leis, 99 Ohio St.3d 537 //The Legal Action Project assisted the City of Cincinnati in defending the Ohio laws that control the carrying of concealed weapons and the carrying of weapons in motor vehicles. With financial backing from the Second Amendment Foundation, four individuals brought the case against Hamilton County's sheriff and Cincinnati's police, seeking to have the state laws struck down as violating various provisions of the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions, including the Second Amendment. On September 24, 2003, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the State's restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons. The Court found there is no constitutional right to carry concealed weapons. This ruling reverses the Court of Appeals ruling. The 5-2 vote is a decisive victory for the City and the Brady Center.//

The city of Cincinnati has a no concealed weapon policy. Four men challenged that saying it took away their rights to the II Amendment. The court found nothing saying that “there is no constitutional right to carry __concealed__ weapons” The case was dismissed.

alexis fehrebach

The Legal Action Project assisted the City of Cincinnati in defending an Ohio law that controlled the carrying of concealed weapons and the carrying of weapons in motor vehicles. Four individuals brought the suit seeking to have the state laws struck down as violating various provisions of the U.S. and Ohio constitutions. The Supreme Court of Ohio issued a 5-2 ruling on September 24, 2003, upholding the State's restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons.
 * Klein v. Leis**, 99 Ohio St.3d 537, 795 N.E.2d 633 (2003)

summery: basically ther5e was this policy that didnt accept weapons. the court said that there were no restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons. and the four men got there 2nd amendment right back.

http://www.gunlawsuits.org/docket/casestatus.php?RecordNo=86

Someone attempted to challenge the 2nd amendment, the right to bare arms, but was over ruled by the court. blog.radioleft.com