William Henry Furman was was attempting a burglary in a home when he was discovered by the residents. He attempted to flee, and in doing so, he tripped and fell. His firearm discharged and killed a resident of the household. In the police report, he had said that he had turned and blindly fired while fleeing. Regardless of which of the two are true, Furman was found guilty of murder and was eligible for the death penalty under the-extant state law.…
I believe that Castle Doctrine is a double edge sword because it gives home owner way to protect their property but we that said in the case of Trayvon Martin who was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch should have never happen the kid was not a treat to any property at the time of the murder. I do believe that if someone is in your house and it becomes apparent that they will hurt you and your family you have the right to protect your house but if the person is walking away from your property and away from you it should be illegal to shoot and killed the person. If a person is running away from you it is not self-defense if you shoot someone in the back is not self-defense.…
The practical application of the defence power in an age of terrorism is difficult to determine, as it is reliant upon a set of circumstances that can have a plethora of different interpretations from a range of variant perspectives. Unlike some other powers, the defence power is purposive and elastic; it waxes and wanes, and its application “depends upon the facts, and as those facts change so may its actual operation as a power”[1]. Recent developments, such as the Thomas case, have led some theorists to comment that “the elastic of the defence power has become stretched all out of proportion”[2]. In its present interpretation, the defence power is no longer simply fixed on an external aggressor. Instead, the enemy is disguised domestically. It no longer depends upon judicial notice, or requires an expression of proportionality “in a context where the fact of war or piece is important”[3]. However, the reasoning behind this breed of jurisprudence is hard to decipher. The balance between liberty and safety seems to be somewhat askew. In this essay, I will attempt to argue that the defence power is, at least in its present reincarnation, excessively aggressive and at odds with other constitutional guarantors to freedom of speech.…
The overthrow began with a major event where Lorrin Andrews Thurston wrote the “Bayonet Constitution” and had his militia march to the monarch at the time, King Kalākaua, to force him to sign it. This was the great beginning to the journey towards Hawaii’s overthrow. The Annexationists, also known as the Committee of Safety or Hawaiian League, supported the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom to the United States. They played a huge part in the takeover of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom was unjustified because Lorrin A. Thurston forced King Kalākaua to sign the Bayonet Constitution and the Committee of Safety deviated from the U.S. president’s commands to restore Hawaii’s power.…
which makes the use of deadly force constitutional only when a felon threatens the safety of the…
E0- The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution asserts that states do possess the ability to deny a person their life, if the due process of law is followed. The due process clause.…
District of Columbia took on Heller in the supreme court in 2008(Doherty 8). The case was a close supreme court case, it had a five to four justice decision (Doherty 4). Heller thought that the second amendment should allow anyone to keep a weapon for self defence in a home registered or unregistered, but District of Columbia did not think that. District of Columbia was upset with the results of the case yet Heller was quite pleased with the results of the supreme court decision. The results of the case have not changed since the results in 2008, some believed that if Donald Trump did not get elected the results would be changed by Hillary Clinton and District of Columbia taking on Heller again. The case started when Heller was told by…
The Brady Law, also known as the Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, was set up to try and establish a set of national standards to promote the safe use of firearms and to reduce gun violence (GVPA, 1994). Included in this are handgun licensing and registration, a stronger regulation of licensed manufacturers, importers, and dealers, and laws against the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons and other dangerous weapons (GVPA, 1994).…
S.150, Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban was proposed in response to the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut where a shooter went on a rampage killing several students and teachers with a high powered, high capacity riffle. Lawmakers want to stop the manufacturing of high capacity weapons which will make the repeating of tragedies like the one seen in Newtown that much harder. Currently there is no federal law which restricts the round capacity of a weapon. However with gun laws so diverse around the nation it is a good possibility that states have their own round capacity laws for firearms. Several states has had and has Assault Weapons Bans in place, but each differing in what guns qualify as an assault rifle. There was also one a federal assault weapons ban which was enacted in 1994 and expired in 2004. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was criticized for being too easy to get around thus it was not reinstated (“Assault”). The main issue for this bill is the US Constitution’s Second Amendment, which gives the American public the right to bear arms. It is such a problem because Feinstein’s Assault Weapons…
Every time there is a tragic event such as a mass shooting, the idea of gun control becomes the number one topic of discussion. Many forms of gun control have been the result of a tragic event. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, for example, is a result of the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, which left James Brady with disabilities for the remainder of his life. Another example of post tragedy ideas for gun control came as the result of the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. These would include expanding and strengthening the current background check system, as well as instituting federal laws against gun trafficking. Congresswoman Giffords would also like to receive federal funding to research the “Cause and Impact of Gun Violence”.…
“Court orders reconsideration of Maryland gun law ruling” by Larry O’Dell February 2016, The Washington Post. Richmond, Va. Maryland’s assault weapons ban implicates it citizens Second Amendment rights and must be reviewed under a judicial standard. District Judge Catherine C. Blake gave gun-rights supporters a chance to argue to overturn and challenge the law. The Firearms Safety Act was passed after Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. The Act was a pro because it was designed to reduce gun violence and make the public safer. Maryland’s law affects the constitutional right to possess firearms for self-defense and home protection for the law-abiding citizens. Because of Maryland’s ban on commonly owned firearms violates an individual right…
The extent to which the Second Amendment applies and the particular laws that go hand in hand with it have long been contested by Americans. One of the more recent debates regarding it involves the Stand Your Ground laws. These laws outline that citizens have “No duty to retreat from the situation before resorting to deadly force; not limited to your property (home, office, etc.)” (“States That Have” Par. 3). These laws have been fiercely contested primarily due to the incident involving George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin in the February of 2012. People are often very stubborn regarding such issues, however, in her article “There is No Need to Change Stand Your Ground Laws” (published November 13, 2012 in the Palm Beach Post), Dara Kam uses her experience covering political issues along with a very straight forward…
I can relate to home security; my safety and that of my family and friends matters to me. However, I see this clause as an unnecessary addition to the Constitution. From personal experience, I can confirm that safety does not lie solely within a gun. If a citizen is arguing that owning a weapon contributes to home security, another could argue that other means could be taken involving protecting yourself or the family. For example, a security system could be put in, or a guard dog could be purchased. I personally believe that guns lead to paranoia and that different actions can be taken to secure one’s personal safety and that of their…
Arising as a common law theory, the Castle Doctrine established the understanding that a citizen has the right to defend their legal place of residence with the use of up to deadly force against an intruder. If the use of force rather than fleeing was reasonable, the citizen is free from prosecution since the force was utilized in a self-defense manner. Therefore, the doctrine was meant to deter crime and provide public safety through empowering citizens to protect their life and property. “Castle doctrine laws support, and, by their extension serve to promote, the defensive use of firearms by private citizens” (Paquette-Boots, Bihari & Elliott, 2009). For this reason, pro-gun control advocates see the Castle Doctrine and the expanded lethal self-defense rights as detrimental towards safety, particularly in high crime and urban…
According to research done by Mark Hoekstra, an economist with Texas A&M University who has thoroughly examined “stand your ground” laws, there are a total of about 14,000 homicides taking place annually in the United States (11). A homicide, in this case, refers to one person unlawfully killing another. That is a fairly high number and it didn’t used to be that high. It has risen significantly since “stand your ground” laws have been implemented into 22 states across the United States. These laws give people the right to use deadly force in a situation in which they feel threatened no matter where they are as long as they have a legal right to be there (Mayors 1). These laws were put into place to benefit our society, but it can be proven that they have not been successfully benefitting our society as a whole because while they do give people the peace of mind that they have the right to protect themselves without fearing the consequences they may have before had to face afterwards, they have also resulted in many more deaths that before that could have been avoided if the person sensing danger had first tried to somehow escape the situation they were in before resorting to violence.…