HELP HELP!!! US gun laws question (1 Viewer)

[haloeshorns]

im applying for a law scholarship and i really need some help with the question ive been asked to give a presentation on. the question is:

"Following yet another shooting in the USA - this time at Viriginia Tech in April 2007 - should the US Supereme Court interpret the 2nd Amendment to guarantee the right of US citizens to carry concealed or automatic weapons?" Please discuss

my first question is, if the Supreme Court of the United States makes a ruling on a constitutional issue, do all state laws that contradict this ruling become void?

secondly. if they "guarantee" this right, does it mean it can still be regulated? i.e. can they pass laws preventing ex-crims from carrying these weapons, and can they still require permits to carry, etc?

thirdly. if the "right" can still be regulated, then how is this different from the current situation, whereby state laws allow, yet regulate, the ownership of such weapons?

please please reply. i really urgently need help with this and would really appreciate your assistance. any other advice on how to approach this question would be greatly appreciated. ive researched and researched, yet im still at a complete loss.

thank you very much in advance!

 

[Frigid]

are you applying to a US law school? i don't know of any Australian law school that might ask people on the US Constitution.

i guess you're at a comparative disadvantage because we don't learn US socio-legal-political history in high school.

sorry, can't help you. don't know who can.

 

[jb_nc]

Actually, Roe v. Wade answers all of your questions.

Read that judgement.

 

[haloeshorns]

It's a private scholarship, granted by a local firm to a student accepted to do law at any Australian law school.

thank you for your help

 

[Frigid]

Actually, Roe v. Wade answers all of your questions.

please explain why Roe v Wade would be relevant?

 

[Thunderbolt]

my first question is, if the Supreme Court of the United States makes a ruling on a constitutional issue, do all state laws that contradict this ruling become void?

Generally, the US Supreme Court rulings apply to each state as the court itself is on a Federal level, so it outranks everyone else. Pretty much the: "I'm bigger than you so listen up, or else" kind of thing.

secondly. if they "guarantee" this right, does it mean it can still be regulated? i.e. can they pass laws preventing ex-crims from carrying these weapons, and can they still require permits to carry, etc?

Yes, changes to the constitution can regulate such a right; but is unlikely to occur, you'd need a referendum to change it. Who want's to "give up" one of their rights?

thirdly. if the "right" can still be regulated, then how is this different from the current situation, whereby state laws allow, yet regulate, the ownership of such weapons?

Technically, they aren't denying the right to firearms ownership; just providing terms to which allow you to undertake this right. It only states under the Second Amendment that you "have the right to 'bear arms'". State law is providing guidelines to what 'bear arms' actually means.

please please reply. i really urgently need help with this and would really appreciate your assistance. any other advice on how to approach this question would be greatly appreciated. ive researched and researched, yet im still at a complete loss.

thank you very much in advance!

I've tried my best to my knowledge to provide a correct answer, but I could be wrong so take this like a grain of salt, it's best to ask your Legal Studies teacher.
Better still, print this off and show it to your Legal Studies teacher and see if I am correct.

Hope that helps.

 

[haloeshorns]

Technically, they aren't denying the right to firearms ownership; just providing terms to which allow you to undertake this right. It only states under the Second Amendment that you "have the right to 'bear arms'". State law is providing guidelines to what 'bear arms' actually means.

So, if the Supreme Court "guarantees the right to carry concealed and automatic weapons" then, by ur logic, state and federal law could "provide guidelines" as to what this means, without technically denying this right?

The way I see it (which I assume must be incorrect or else the question wouldnt be asked) citizens are already "guaranteed the right to carry concealed and automatic weapons".

Is the question possibly asking me whether current regulation of the "right to keep and bear arms", specifically in reference to concealed and automatic weapons, is in violation of the 2nd Amendment?

I hope (and highly doubt) that that made sense....

 

[jb_nc]

please explain why Roe v Wade would be relevant?

I meant the outcomes and procedure in Roe v. Wade (i.e. SCOTUS decision overturning State's laws and the restrictions involved).

I'm not sure if it's 'relevant' because it this questions is in reference to the second Amendment but it does answer her questions.

 

[Thunderbolt]

So, if the Supreme Court "guarantees the right to carry concealed and automatic weapons" then, by ur logic, state and federal law could "provide guidelines" as to what this means, without technically denying this right?

The way I see it (which I assume must be incorrect or else the question wouldnt be asked) citizens are already "guaranteed the right to carry concealed and automatic weapons".

Is the question possibly asking me whether current regulation of the "right to keep and bear arms", specifically in reference to concealed and automatic weapons, is in violation of the 2nd Amendment?

I hope (and highly doubt) that that made sense....

This should shed some light on the issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution