D.C. v. Heller A Landmark Second Amendment Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller directly impacted only a handful of gun owners, but it was one of the most significant Second Amendment rulings in the countrys history. Although the Heller decision only specifically addressed gun ownership by residents of federal enclaves like Washington, D.C., it marked the first time the nation’s highest court gave a definitive answer on whether the Second Amendment provides an individual with the right to keep and bear arms. Fast Facts: D.C. v. Heller Case Argued: March 18, 2008Decision Issued: June 26, 2008Petitioner: District of Columbia et al.Respondent: Dick Anthony HellerKey Questions: Did the provisions of the District of Columbia Code that restrict the licensing of handguns and require licensed firearms kept in the home to be kept nonfunctional violate the Second Amendment?Majority Decision: Justices Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, AlitoDissenting: Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, BreyerRuling: The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms and that the district’s handgun ban and trigger lock requirement violated the Second Amendment. Background of D.C. v. Heller Dick Anthony Heller was the plaintiff in D.C. v. Heller. He  was a licensed special police officer in Washington who was issued and carried a handgun as part of his job. Yet federal law prevented him from owning and keeping a handgun in his District of Columbia home. After learning of the plight of fellow D.C. resident Adrian Plesha, Heller unsuccessfully sought help from the National Rifle Association with a lawsuit to overturn the gun ban in D.C. Plesha was convicted and sentenced to probation and 120 hours of community service after shooting and wounding a man who was burglarizing his home in 1997. Although the burglar admitted to the crime, handgun ownership had been illegal in D.C. since 1976. Heller was unsuccessful in convincing the NRA to take up the case, but he connected with Cato Institute scholar Robert Levy. Levy planned a self-financed lawsuit to overturn the D.C. gun ban and hand-selected six plaintiffs, including Heller, to challenge the law. Heller and his five co-plaintiffs — software designer Shelly Parker, the Cato Institute’s Tom G. Palmer, mortgage broker Gillian St. Lawrence, USDA employee Tracey Ambeau and attorney George Lyon — filed their initial lawsuit in February 2003. The Legal Process of D.C. v. Heller The initial lawsuit was dismissed by a U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia. The court found that the challenge to the constitutionality of D.C.’s handgun ban was without merit. But the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the lower court’s ruling four years later. In a 2-1 decision in D.C. v. Parker, the court struck down sections of the 1975 Firearms Control Regulation Act for plaintiff Shelly Parker. The court ruled that portions of the law banning handgun ownership in D.C. and requiring that rifles be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock were unconstitutional. State attorneys general in Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah and Wyoming all joined Levy in support of Heller and his co-plaintiffs. The state attorney general offices in Massachusetts, Maryland and New Jersey, as well as representatives in Chicago, New York City and San Francisco, joined in support of the Districts gun ban.   Not surprisingly, the National Rifle Association joined the cause of the Heller team, while the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence cast its support to the D.C. team. D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty petitioned the court to hear the case again weeks after the appeals court ruling. His petition was rejected by a 6-4 vote. D.C. then petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. Before the Supreme Court Ruling   The case title technically changed from D.C. v. Parker at the appeals court level to D.C. v. Heller  at the Supreme Court level because the appeals court determined that only Heller’s challenge to the gun ban’s constitutionality had standing. The other five plaintiffs were dismissed from the lawsuit. This didnt change the merit of the appeals court’s decision, however. The Second Amendment was set to take center stage at the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time in generations. D.C. v. Heller  garnered national attention as individuals and organizations both in favor of and opposed to the gun ban lined up to support either side in the debate. The 2008 presidential election was just around the corner. Republican candidate John McCain joined a majority of U.S. Senators – 55 of them – who signed a brief favoring Heller, while Democrat candidate Barack Obama did not. The George W. Bush administration sided with the District of Columbia with the U.S. Department of Justice arguing that the case should be remanded by the Supreme Court. But Vice President Dick Cheney broke from that stance by signing the brief in support of Heller. A number of other states joined the fight in addition to those that had cast their support for Heller earlier:  Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia. Hawaii and New York joined the states supporting the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court Decision   The Supreme Court sided with Heller by a 5-4 majority, affirming the appeals court’s decision. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the court’s opinion and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., and justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, Jr. Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer dissented.   The court ruled that the District of Columbia must give Heller a license to possess a handgun inside his home. In the process, the court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms and that the district’s handgun ban and trigger lock requirement violated the Second Amendment. The court’s decision did not prohibit many existing federal limitations to gun ownership, including limitations for convicted felons and the mentally ill. It didnt affect limitations preventing the possession of firearms in schools and government buildings.

Descartes Argument for the Existence of God Essay

Descartes employs what is known as an ontological argument to prove the existence of God. Saint Anselm who lived during the 11th century first formulated this type of argument. Since then it has proved popular with many philosophers including Rene` Descartes. Even though ontological arguments have lost popularity with modern philosophers there has been some recent attempts to revive them. Descartes formulation is regarded as being one of the best because it is straight forward and relatively easy to follow. It is also useful when trying to understand Descartes to keep in mind that he talks about two types of existence. There is the normal everyday existence we experience and a special type of existence which he calls, necessary†¦show more content†¦Descartes argues that we can no more imagine God not existing then we can imagine a mountain without a valley. In this analogy Descartes is trying to draw out the distinction between ordinary existence and necessary existence. The idea of a mountain implies a valley. It may be possible to argue that one can imagine a mountain without a valley but such structures do not exist in real life. In the real world mountains and valleys are found together. So mountains imply existence of valleys but unlike the imperfect existence we find in the mountainous world, God’s existence is both perfect and necessary. For Descartes, necessary existence as opposed to ordinary existence is the key. Descartes is pointing out the difference between the existence of God and the existence of a mountain. Finite things, says Descartes, have possible or contingent existence. For example, a finite thing such as a mountain relies on volcanic forces and weathering to bring it in and out of existence. Necessary existence on the other hand is contained in the idea of God. Therefore, God does not need anything to bring him in and out of existence. Descartes goes on to say that if God’s existence was not necessary then he would have to rely on something else to being him in and out of existence. This would mean that God would be neither external to the physical world nor perfect. This is of course isShow MoreRelatedDescartes Argument For God s Existence Of God Essay1103 Words   |  5 Pagespaper, I offer a reconstruction of Descartes argument for God’s existence in the Third Meditation. Descartes tries to prove the existence of God with an argument that proceeds from the clear and distinct idea of an infinite being to the existence of himself. He believes that his clear and distinct idea of an infinite being with infinite â€Å"objective reality† leads to the occurrence of the â€Å"Special Causal Principle†. I will start by discussing and analyzing Descartes clear and distinct idea of an infiniteRead MoreDescartes Second Argument For The Existence Of God1642 Words   |  7 PagesPaper: Descarte s’ Second Argument for the Existence of God As with almost all of Descartes inquiries the roots of his second argument for the existence of God begin with his desire to build a foundation of knowledge that he can clearly and distinctly perceive. At the beginning of the third meditation Descartes once again recollects the things that he knows with certainty. The problem arises when he attempts to clearly and distinctly understand truths of arithmetic and geometry. Descartes has enoughRead MoreDescartes Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God1302 Words   |  6 Pages10/30/2014 Descartes’ Ontological Argument for the Existence of God The Ontological Argument for the existence of God is an a priori argument that aims to demonstrate that God’s real-world existence follows necessarily from the concept of God. In Meditation V of Discourse on Methods and Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes presents his version of the Ontological Argument for the existence of God. In this essay, I will argue that this argument fails because necessary existence for a conceptRead MoreDescartes s Argument On The Existence Of God1834 Words   |  8 PagesIn A Discourse on the Method, Descartes attempted to prove the existence of God in a priori manner. He did not trust his own senses when trying to prove the existence of God and therefore he relied on the ontological argument. By making the same assumption made by Anselm, which was that an ontological argument assumes that existence is a predicate of God, Descartes is able to conclude that ‘God exists’ is true by definition because the subject ‘God’ , who already contains all perfections, alreadyRead More Renà © Descartes Argument on the Existence of God Essay1528 Words   |  7 PagesRenà © Descartes Argument on the Existence of God The problem with Renà © Descartes argument about the existence of God has to do with his rationalist deductive reasoning. Descartes deduces that truth about the existence of God lies within his idea of a perfect God and Gods essence (as a perfect being who must exist in order to be perfect). A rationalist philosopher, Descartes discounts human knowledge as a product of our sensory data (our senses) but supports the epistemological stance thatRead MoreComparing Aquinas And Descartes Arguments For The Existence Of God766 Words   |  4 PagesAquinas and Descartes both have arguments for the existence of God, with some similarities and a multitude of differences. Descartes presents two major premises in his argument with his degrees of reality principle and his casual adequacy principle. It is possible for Descartes to be influenced by Aquinas, but the arguments for the same thing differ greatly that even if any inspiration Descartes could have pulled from Aquinas work is minimal, to say the least. Comparing Aquinas and Descartes they bothRead MoreEssay about The Existence of God: the Arguments of Locke and Descartes965 Words   |  4 Pages Descartes believes that Gods existence is clear and distinct. God exists because the thought of God is derived from a completely clear and distinct idea from within his being (which he concedes is a thinking being). Having come from distinct thoughts, the idea of God can therefore never be considered a falsity. From this very distinct idea of God comes everything else that one grasps distinctly and clearly. He states, From the fact that I cannot think of God not existing, it followsRead MoreThe Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God1509 Words   |  7 Pages Descartes’ ontological argument is an echo of the original ontological argument for the existence of God as proposed by St. Anselm in the 11th century. To illustrate the background of the ontological argument, Anselm’s argument works within a distinct framework of ontology that posits the existence of God as necessity by virtue of its definition. In other words, for the mind to conceive of an infinite, perfect God, ultimately implies that there must indeed be a perfect God that embodies existenceRead MoreDescartes Meditations On First Philosophy1712 Words   |  7 PagesDescartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) contains six Meditations. In the first two of these Descartes addresses doubt and certainty. By the end of the second Meditation Descartes establishes the possibility of certainty by con cluding that he is a â€Å"thinking thing† and that this is beyond doubt. Having established the possibility of certainty, Descartes attempts to prove the existence of God. The argument he presents in the Third Meditation for the existence of God has been nicknamed theRead MoreDescartes Fourth Meditation On The Existence Of God1382 Words   |  6 PagesIn Descartes’ Fifth Meditation, he delivers an argument that has come to be known as the Ontological Argument. It is here that Descartes argues for the existence of God, through a priori reasoning. In order to understand both the strengths and weakness of this argument, I will first break it down into its main premises. From here, I will argue that despite the simplicity and use of reasoning in the argument, the weaknesses outweigh the strengths, and ultimately that the argument fails. To allow for

Platos Reflection on Metaphysics free essay sample

A combination of the Greek word, meta, which translates to â€Å"after,† â€Å"beyond,† â€Å"along with,† â€Å"among,† and â€Å"behind,† and the Latin term, physica, that simply means the science of matter and physical properties. Philosophers refer to this term to theorize about the different elements of the world in which we live and the world that truly exists. One of the most prominent philosophers is Plato, who set the foundation for many modern philosophers on their perspective of reality through reason. Plato believed in two separate realities; the physical and the immaterial. He claimed that a dividing line existed between the two worlds, and the immaterial or intelligible is of more importance in the discovery of truth than the physical properties of our world. Comprised of intangible properties but that can be seen through logic, the immaterial world is grasping the reason behind the idea of an object and separating those elements from the subject. We will write a custom essay sample on Platos Reflection on Metaphysics or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Plato explicates the physical world as anything or objects that is identified by one of our five senses. Within the physical world are two subsets, image and tangible object. Image refers to the shadow or reflection of the image. In addition, the physical object is self explanatory; the object distinguished by touch, taste, smell, or sight. Although primarily disconnected, the two worlds cannot exist without each other and the knowledge that pertains to both. For example, Plato utilizes a ball as the subject to form an analogy of the collaboration between the two realities. From childhood, we are taught that a ball is a ball based on others perception and knowledge of it; not our original thought. The ball exists in the world of appearances, physical. However, its intangible properties such as, roundness, exist on a parallel plane. Plato describes that plane as the world of Forms. In an effort to further enlighten us, Plato sets guidelines for the properties to forms. First, forms are objective; ideas exist through reason and not experiential. Objects that we perceive are reliant upon our experiences and verbal confirmation of the object and not the actual perspective of the object. Therefore, one can surmise that our senses are isleading, and the reality in which we live is different from others and the true reality. Next, forms are transcendent. The property remains true in spite of time and space. Third, forms are eternal. As aforementioned, Plato believes forms are unchanging; true concept behind an object is unchanging, redness. The form is separate from our subjective image. True comprehension lies in individually analyzing each separate form that comprises the object an d identifies it as what we perceive it as. Forth, forms are models; truest essence of an idea to which an object copies the form and combines it with other elements to create a copied version of a sample of the form. Fifth, forms are intellectual species; can only be determined through reason separating the being from the object. Lastly, forms are perfection. In its purest state, a form is a singular entity. A material object collects bits of forms and its perfection making the object itself impure. A material object cannot be perfect in its existence because it is but an imitation of several forms that only alone are perfect. Plato’s concept of reality or the simultaneous existence of the two realities are at best intriguing and worthy of exploring. However, as he himself stated, we can never come in direct contact with the immaterial world. Therefore, how can true knowledge be acquired or ascertained? Once again, it is not until we are no longer part of this world that we may finally discover the truth behind this vast universe and the world or worlds in which we reside.

To Spare the Rod Reflections of Corporal Punishment free essay sample

Spare the Rod: Reflections of Corporal Punishment Benjamin Franklin was of a wise man, who expressed many unique aphorisms In Poor Richards Almanacs_ They related to his different outlook on life. And one of his aphorisms read: Spare the rod and spoil the child. I strongly disagree with the view expressed in this aphorism because I believe that physical punishment afflicted against children will only produce an aggressive and rebellious outcome.The assertion that Benjamin Franklins aphorism lies upon is that children will valve Into spoiled adults without the use of corporal punishment. This term has the meaning of Inflicting physical harm towards another being for their wrongdoing. Franklin holds a clear belief that children are bad, and commit bad things. In turn, they must be taught discipline and control in the form of corporal punishment. If not, then the children will carry down the path of doing whatever they please without any consequences to follow. We will write a custom essay sample on To Spare the Rod: Reflections of Corporal Punishment or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page They will ultimately be spoiled, and only care for their own needs. The fault behind Franklins aphorism can be demonstrated In the studies found by he American Psychological Association. They stated that the more often or harshly a child was hit, the more likely they are to be aggressive or to have mental health problems. This fact alone illustrates that it is both not healthy or effective in harming a child to make them behave. Corporal punishment on its own does not teach children right from wrong.Although it makes children afraid to disobey their parents, when the parents are not present, they will continue on to misbehave. There is a much more productive way In teaching kids orderliness and conduct than a beat or slap. Children deserve better treatment and love than that. Those who agree with Franklins belief share the same mindset that all children are fallacious and amiss. These supporters of Franklin insist on administering punishment against kids by physical means.Therefore, this affliction will teach them not to act in an inappropriate manner again. If nothing is done after a child commits an unsuitable action, then they will think it Is perfectly fine to do it yet again. This is crucial to utilize corporal punishment as a discipline technique. Evidently, there are many opinions to the question if corporal punishment is cogent or not. Ultimately, it only teaches that violence is an appropriate response to problems or frustrations with people.This can lead to a cycle of violence and damage in the childs future relationships. It will be more likely that children will become defiant and aggressive in the future. Many times a childs misbehaver is a result from a mistake in Judgment. We hope that our own mistakes serve as learning opportunities in turn, we need to apply this same idea to children. The right to physical safety and protection extends to soldiers, prisoners, and adults under the law. The most vulnerable among all, our children, must have the same right.