Term
|
Definition
| Deterrence by punishment makes it so you do not want to do the action again. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| It is when you do something and the action get publicized so that others do not want to do the action. Example: Capital Punishment; or cutting off thieves hands. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The part about deterrence it assumes that the criminal is rational. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Legal right to defend self: the use of reasonable force to defend yourself, your family, and your property against physical attack, or the right to do this |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| It gives individuals the right to use deadly force to defend themselves without any requirement to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The right of a person to protect a third party with reasonable force against another person who is threatening to inflict force upon the third party. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Refers to the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in proximity. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A presumption based upon a policy of law or a general rule and not upon the facts or evidence in an individual case. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| is the obligation resting on a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position to one's own position. The burden of proof is on the carrier (the person that wants to carry). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Pantano wants to carry a gun in order to protect himself from a robbery. Pantano carries a lot of cash with him. His father had been previously robbed. People have been trespassing on his grounds. And the Burden of Proof is ultimately. Pantano because he is the one that wants to carry. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Pantano went to the police to file a form. Which the police chief signed. Judicially ordered license. |
|
|
Term
| Who cannot have a gun permit? |
|
Definition
The presumption of purchasing cannot be denied except for these reasons:
If a person committed of a crime example: Domestic Violence (Police can lose their job if they are involved in domestic violence).
Drug Dependent.
Mental Instability.
Habitual Drunkard.
Restraining Orders.
Juvenile. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A mandate that residents demonstrate an “urgent necessity for self-protection”. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| It was a precedent decision which means that it guides the lower courts. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Due to his convicted son in the home, the father was not allowed to purchase a gun. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Society intervenes to prevent people from harming themselves or others. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Claim that prevails over everything else. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Right you have unless there is a more compelling right. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Does not say owning a gun is an absolute right. He pursues moral right to own a gun. There is a prima facia right to own a gun. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| You can protect your own home. You can shoot because you do not know the intent of the intruder. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Too many guns but cannot take them all away because the people would be in an uproar. You want to make a rule that people will follow because disobedience will be costly and bring disrespect. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| You cannot ban guns! Too many people possess them. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Background Checks on all guns and the previous ones to be strengthened. Incentives to share information between states. More funding of police. Ban military assault weapons. Hold people accountable. Higher gun research. |
|
|
Term
| Lafollette Fundamental Right |
|
Definition
| You can lose rights and the right to own a gun can be forfeited. There are conditions on fundamental rights. Fundamental rights are not subject based on majority rule, but we can impose limits. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| There has to be an overriding reason to take away a fundamental right. Owning a gun is not a fundamental right. You can have a belief but you cannot always act on that belief. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Guns are inherently harmful. |
|
|
Term
| Fundamental Right to Defend Yourself |
|
Definition
| This theory assumes that criminals will weigh out the costs and benefits risks: more people harm themselves than others. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| "Friend of the Court" Outside perspective on the case. Inviting participation is a democracy. Presents/Supports arguments. Allows experts to provide information. Allows to see a bigger picture. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 2nd Amendment is not a private right, but a militia right. The State militia. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Catholic Kings over Protestant people, they took guns away from the Protestants and used the gun for the Catholic Army. Then Parliament became the definitive law for England and Parliament gave Protestant Weapons. |
|
|
Term
| Historian's "Well-Regulated Militia" |
|
Definition
| Congress has the power to train, discipline, but this also leaves Congress the option not to do this. A national militia controlled by Congress would mean that Congress could take up the training, arms, and the militia. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The natural right to arms. The focus was for freedom and protecting individual's freedoms and protecting the government. |
|
|
Term
| A defense to abortion the violinist |
|
Definition
| Thomson takes it that you may now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: the right to life, Thomson says, does not entail the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right. "[I]f you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due." For the same reason, Thomson says, abortion does not violate the fetus's right to life but merely deprives the fetus of something—the use of the pregnant woman's body—to which it has no right. Thus, it is not that by terminating her pregnancy a woman violates her moral obligations, but rather that a woman who carries the fetus to term is a 'Good Samaritan' who goes beyond her obligations. |
|
|
Term
| A defense to abortion "the expanding child" |
|
Definition
| Thomson concedes that a third party indeed cannot make the choice to kill either the person being crushed or the child. However, this does not mean that the person being crushed cannot act in self-defense and attack the child to save his or her own life. To liken this to pregnancy, the mother can be thought to be the house, the fetus the growing-child. In such a case, the mother’s life is being threatened, and the fetus is the one who threatens it. Because for no reason should the mother’s life be threatened, and also for no reason is the fetus threatening it, both are innocent, and thus no third party can intervene. But, Thomson says, the person threatened can intervene, by which justification a mother can rightfully abort. If we say that no one may help the mother obtain an abortion, we fail to acknowledge the mother’s right over her body (or property). Thomson says that we are not personally obligated to help the mother but this does not rule out the possibility that someone else may act. As Thomson reminds, the house belongs to the mother; similarly, the body which holds a fetus also belongs to the mother. |
|
|
Term
| A defense to abortion "people-seeds" |
|
Definition
| Here, the people-seeds flying through the window represent conception, despite the mesh screen, which functions as contraception. The woman does not want a people-seed to root itself in her house, and so she even takes the measure to protect herself with the best mesh screens. However, in the event that one finds its way in, unwelcome as it may be, does the simple fact that the woman knowingly risked such an occurrence when opening her window deny her the ability to rid her house of the intruder? Thomson notes that some may argue the affirmative to this question, claiming that “...after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors”. But by this logic, she says, any woman could avoid pregnancy due to rape by simply having a hysterectomy – an extreme procedure simply to safeguard against such a possibility. Thomson concludes that although there may be times when the fetus does have a right to the mother's body, certainly in most cases the fetus does not have a right to the mother's body. This analogy raises the issue of whether all abortions are unjust killing. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. The first time, Roe's attorney -- Sarah Weddington -- could not locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice Potter Stewart. Her opponent -- Jay Floyd -- misfired from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional argument in the second round. Her new opponent -- Robert Flowers -- came under strong questioning from Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling. |
|
|
Term
| Planned Parenthood Case Facts |
|
Definition
| The Pennsylvania legislature amended its abortion control law in 1988 and 1989. Among the new provisions, the law required informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. A minor seeking an abortion required the consent of one parent (the law allows for a judicial bypass procedure). A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus. These provisions were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians. A federal appeals court upheld all the provisions except for the husband notification requirement. |
|
|
Term
| Planned Parenthood Case Issue |
|
Definition
| Can a state require women who want an abortion to obtain informed consent, wait 24 hours, and, if minors, obtain parental consent, without violating their right to abortions as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade? |
|
|
Term
| Planned Parenthood Decision |
|
Definition
| In a bitter, 5-to-4 decision, the Court again reaffirmed Roe, but it upheld most of the Pennsylvania provisions. For the first time, the justices imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions. The new standard asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an "undue burden," which is defined as a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." Under this standard, the only provision to fail the undue-burden test was the husband notification requirement. The opinion for the Court was unique: It was crafted and authored by three justices. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Handgun possession is banned under District of Columbia (D) law. The law prohibits the registration of handguns and makes it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm. Furthermore all lawfully owned firearms must be kept unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock unless they are being used for lawful recreational activities or located in a place of business.
Dick Heller (P) is a special police officer in the District of Columbia. The District refused Heller’s application to register a handgun he wished to keep in his home. Heller filed this lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia on Second Amendment grounds. Heller sought an injunction against enforcement of the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement prohibiting the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms within the home.
The District Court dismissed Heller’s complaint. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and directed the District Court to enter summary judgment in favor of the District of Columbia. The Court of Appeals construed Heller’s complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it in his home only when necessary for self defense, and held that the total ban on handguns violated the individual right to possess firearms under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| What rights are protected by the Second Amendment? |
|
|
Term
| DC v. Heller; Holding (Scalia) |
|
Definition
| The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. |
|
|
Term
| DC v. Heller; Text of the Second Amendment |
|
Definition
| A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. |
|
|
Term
| DC v. Heller; Constitutional Construction |
|
Definition
The prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely announces a purpose. It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
The militia consisted of all males capable of acting together for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable citizen militias, thereby enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The Antifederalists therefore sought to preserve the citizens’ militia by denying Congress the power to abridge the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
This interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights adopted in state constitutions immediately preceding and following the Second Amendment. Furthermore, the drafting history reveals three proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts, and legislators from ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s interpretation.
No precedent forecloses this interpretation. United States v. Miller limits the type of weapons to which the right applies to those in common use for lawful purposes, but does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes.
The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons supports the holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time.
The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. This prohibition would fail constitutional muster under any standard of scrutiny. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is therefore unconstitutional.
The Court assumes that a license will satisfy Heller’s prayer for relief and therefore does not address the constitutionality of the licensing requirement. Assuming Heller is not otherwise disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District of Columbia must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. |
|
|
Term
| DC v. Heller; Dissent (Stevens) |
|
Definition
The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people to maintain a well regulated militia. It was a response to the concern that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to state sovereignty. Neither the text of the Second Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidence the slightest interest by the Framers in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms.
There is no indication that the Framers intended to enshrine the common law right of self-defense in the Constitution. The view in Miller that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons, is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption. The majority fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons. |
|
|
Term
| DC v. Heller; Dissent (Breyer) |
|
Definition
The Second Amendment protects militia-related interests, not self-defense-related interests. Furthermore, the Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Colonial history itself offers important examples of the kinds of gun regulation that citizens would then have thought compatible with the right to keep and bear arms, including substantial regulation of firearms in urban areas, and regulations that imposed limitations on the use of firearms for the protection of the home.
Adoption of a true strict scrutiny standard for evaluating gun control regulations would be impossible and I would adopt an interest-balancing inquiry. In applying this kind of standard the Court normally defers to a legislature’s empirical judgment in matters where a legislature is likely to have greater expertise and greater institutional fact finding capacity. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Houston police were dispatched to Lawrence’s (D) apartment in response to a reported weapons disturbance. The officers found Lawrence and Garner (D) engaged in a sexual act. Lawrence and Garner were charged and convicted under Texas law of “deviate sexual intercourse, namely anal sex, with a member of the same sex (man).” Lawrence and Garner challenged the statute as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Lawrence and Garner were each fined $200 and order to pay $141.25 in costs. The Court of Appeals considered defendants’ federal constitutional arguments under both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. After hearing the case en banc the court rejected the constitutional arguments and affirmed the convictions. The court held that Bowers v. Hardwick was controlling regarding the due process issue. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Does a statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violate the Due Process Clause? |
|
|
Term
| Lawrence v. Texas; Holding |
|
Definition
| Yes. A statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. |
|
|
Term
| Lawrence v. Texas; Ruling |
|
Definition
Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The defendants are adults and their conduct was in private and consensual.
The right to privacy is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.
Roe v. Wade recognized the right of a woman to make certain fundamental decisions affecting her destiny and confirmed that the protection of liberty under the Due Process Clause has a substantive dimension of fundamental significance in defining the rights of the person. It is clear that in Bowers v. Hardwick this Court failed to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To declare the issue as one related to the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse. |
|
|
Term
| Lawrence v. Texas; Concurring (O'Thomas) |
|
Definition
| I do not join the Court in overruling Bowers but I agree that the Texas statute is an unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. |
|
|
Term
| Lawrence v. Texas; Dissent (Scalia) |
|
Definition
| Nowhere does the Court’s opinion declare that homosexual sodomy is a “fundamental right” under the Due Process Clause; nor does it subject the Texas law to the standard of review that would be appropriate (strict scrutiny) if homosexual sodomy were a “fundamental right.” Thus, while overruling the outcome of Bowers, the Court leaves strangely untouched its central legal conclusion: “D would have us announce . . . a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy. This we are quite unwilling to do.” Instead the Court simply describes petitioners’ conduct as an exercise of their liberty and proceeds to apply an unheard-of form of rational-basis review that will have far-reaching implications beyond this case. |
|
|
Term
| Lawrence v. Texas; Dissent (Thomas) |
|
Definition
| If I were a member of the Texas Legislature I would vote to repeal this law. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources. But I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty is to decide cases agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. I can find neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a general right of privacy, or as the Court terms it today, the liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions. |
|
|
Term
| Bowers v. Hardwick; Facts |
|
Definition
| Michael Hardwick was observed by a Georgia police officer while engaging in the act of consensual homosexual sodomy with another adult in the bedroom of his home. After being charged with violating a Georgia statute that criminalized sodomy, Hardwick challenged the statute's constitutionality in Federal District Court. Following a ruling that Hardwick failed to state a claim, the court dismissed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that Georgia's statute was unconstitutional. Georgia's Attorney General, Michael J. Bowers, appealed to the Supreme Court and was granted certiorari. |
|
|
Term
| Bowers v. Hardwick; Issue |
|
Definition
| Does the Constitution confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in consensual sodomy, thereby invalidating the laws of many states which make such conduct illegal? |
|
|
Term
| Bowers v. Hardwick; Decision |
|
Definition
| No. The divided Court found that there was no constitutional protection for acts of sodomy, and that states could outlaw those practices. Justice Byron White argued that the Court has acted to protect rights not easily identifiable in the Constitution only when those rights are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" (Palko v. Connecticut, 1937) or when they are "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition" (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965). The Court held that the right to commit sodomy did not meet either of these standards. White feared that guaranteeing a right to sodomy would be the product of "judge-made constitutional law" and send the Court down the road of illegitimacy. |
|
|
Term
| Right to Choose v. Byrne; Decision |
|
Definition
| If medically necessary states cannot choose life over abortion. |
|
|
Term
| Right to Choose v. Byrne; Holding |
|
Definition
| A state can choose not to fund but cannot hold restriction on what is medically necessary. |
|
|
