Therefore, the executive, legislative, and judicial branch will enforce S.397 to protect firearm industries and our legal system from those attempting to hold them accountable for their criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms or ammunition products. Many people that are injured by firearms or use certain types of ammunition will not be able to hold makers or sellers responsible for the user’s accident or act that resulted in an injury or death. Many lawsuits that were brought to court before the PLCAA were majority criminal cases which resulted with dismissals because the courts believed that manufacturers should be held liable for the acts of criminal cases. Some difficulties or loopholes that can possibly prevent the PLCAA from being enforced is if a consumer or victim claims that the firearm product could have prevented an injury or death if it had specific safety regulations such as:
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution involving the clause of double jeopardy states that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…” This statement gives no right to the government to prosecute or punish a criminal for the same offense. Going through trial in a case is not only financially straining for both the court and the individual but also emotionally. There are three conditions necessary for a defendant to have protection under double jeopardy against a second prosecution. The earlier prosecution must progress to the point of jeopardy attachment. Second, a prosecution must then involve the same offense.
To undergo a background check, prospective gun buyers are required by federal regulations to present, “photo identification issued by a government entity.” It is illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison to sell or transfer any firearm or ammunition to someone while “knowing” or having “reasonable cause to believe” that the person is convicted of a felony offense. Background checks have blocked more than 1.6 million prohibited purchasers from buying guns. Background checks only do so much, because criminals don’t go to stores to buy guns, but go through the black market were they obtain basically what they want. Besides the black market, criminals also obtain weapons through loop holes such as family and friends, private sellers, and gun shows, where they do not need to go through any background
David Gray CJUS 200 Application Essay 2-15-14 Can you seize the marijuana plants at that time? If yes, what is your legal justification for doing so? If no, what legally prohibits you from doing so? No, as a police officer you would not be able to seize the marijuana plants at this time, by doing so you would be violating the rights of the citizens of the house that was entered due to the noise ordinance. Actually, the fourth amendment would actually keep you from doing so because it states that “every citizen right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property –whether through police stops of citizens on the street, arrests, or searches of homes and businesses”.
Exclusionary Rule Search and seizures are protected under the fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Officer that go beyond the law and obtain evidence without a warrant are in breach of a person’s fourth amendment right. The evidence that is obtained is not admissible in court and fall under the exclusionary rule. This paper will discuss the benefits of the exclusionary rule, as well as alternative remedies to the rule. Reason for the Exclusionary Rule The exclusionary rule was created to protect innocent people from being harassed from law enforcement.
However, if there was a waiting period in all states it could prevent a person from committing a crime if the firearm was purchased from a Federal Firearm Licensed dealer. A waiting period imposes a time period of several days or longer during which tempers can cool, so that by the time the gun is obtained, the motivation to kill will have evaporated (Jacobs, 2004, p. 3). The state of Texas currently does not have a waiting period when purchasing handguns, shotguns, or rifles. If mental health assessments or release of medical records would have been available during a background check it could have raised flags regarding any mental status, which could have prevented some individuals that have committed crimes from acquiring weapons or
The right to carry a concealed firearm is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. This right alone should be enough justification for the Legislative Branch of government to mandate all states to abide by this constitutional right of its citizens. The law enforcement within each state alone cannot guarantee the safety of its citizens. Responsible citizens should have the right to protect their families and the states should not impede on this right by not allowing concealed carry (O’Shea, 2012, p. 585). Recently in Wisconsin, there was a good news story displaying the necessity for concealed carry.
Can The Government Take Away Certain Eights "For our own good"? The United States Government has been trying to take away certain gun rights from citizens for years, such as gun control, gun licensing, and even owning a gun unless working for the government. They say it's for safety, controllment, and even better "Our own good". Even though most people own guns for safety or self-defense, hunting animals, or even just target practice in the back yard, although, some use them for other reasons that are not good. If the government were to do this, do they realize the consequences?
It also doesn’t make sense to blame an inanimate object rather than the individual behind it and the reasons why gun violence occurs. A gun is a tool, not unlike a car or knife. When a law-abiding citizen makes the decision to purchase a gun, it is usually for the purpose of self-defense. It evens the playing field between a victim and a potentially dangerous criminal. In the story “They Each Had a Gun,” Hannah LaMarca was robbed and assaulted with no way to defend herself.
This can be seen through the laws that followed after the St. Valentine’s Day massacre, John F. Kennedy assassination and the killing of Martin Luther King Junior which were meant for the government to control the type of guns that citizens could carry and use. I would highly recommend that leaders and citizens to take part in the gun control measures and laws in order to improve their safety and that of their family from crime. I decided as I said in the beginning to pick this topic because a majority of individuals have been affected by gun violence and it has become a menace to society. I will end with “Guns do not kill people. People kill people” at the end of the day gun lobbyists, owners a like and the general public should advocate for laws that encourage buyers and owners to demonstrate that they can possess a firearm lawfully and responsibly.