Annotated Bibliography/Thesis

SUPREME COURT 1

U.S. Supreme Court
Donteria Smith
Indian River State College
Professor George Ackerman
Constitutional Law
05/18/2021

In what ways does federalism play a role in the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions of Heller and McDonald?
The case by Heller and MC Donald is all about right of people in possession of arms. According to court, both the federal and local government should support bearing and possession of ammunition. However, June 28, 2010 came as a result of possession of arms whereby individuals had to come up with strategies for the possession of ammunition. In this paper, we shall discuss the role of U.S. Supreme Court decision on matters related to possession and bearing of arms as discussed from Heller and Mc Donald.
The second amendment ruled out that individuals should not be in possession of guns. Generally, people were carrying out their guns in public and the law allowed them to have them on their disposal. Donald filed a case against possession of arms (Blakeman & Banks, 2018). U.S. District Court had a ruling concerning possession of arms. It states that people should not be allowed to have their own guns. Therefore, the court came up with strategy whereby all people were to register their ammunitions. Advancement concerning the law on possession of guns was challenged with people being limited on how they can use their guns. For example, people were to use their guns in private. Further, any person who is to use guns, they were to carry them privately and in their home places.
Additionally, the role of Supreme Court ensured that people carry their arms in homes and business premises. This provision limited reactions on responses to the general use of arms. Although each provision did not prohibit use of guns, last suit allowed the use of guns and possession. This followed its appearance in the second amendment. On the contrary, the provision concerning possession of guns did not match other nations (Blakeman & Banks, 2018). Therefore, nations were getting enough provision for other nations. Providing information on their stand and state of war could help out in determination of different cases. For example, some nations having warfare did not have to possess guns or have any form of ammunitions.
Court of Appeal allowed possession weapon with limiting factors in the fourteenth amendment. For instance, people were allowed to own guns but not on advantage of lives and liberty of other people (Monea, 2020). According to fourteenth amendment, immunities clause prevent privileges given to people from the United States.
Finally, the court came in for the support of Heller suggestion and argument. It is stated that they were allowed to possess ammunitions not based on traditional requirements but through lawful purpose. Traditionally, it had not being in to possess guns. For instance, the law provides for the citizens in the United States of America that all people ought to possess ammunitions but following reasons as discussed in constitution. American Scheme had been ing justice and liberty to all people despite of their being. This follows standard set in place to ensure security and liberty of all people in the United States of America.

Reference
Blakeman, J. C., & Banks, C. P. (2018). The US Supreme Court, new federalism, and public policy. In Controversies in American Federalism and Public Policy (pp. 1-17). Routledge.
Monea, N. C. (2020). STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO BEAR ARMS TEN YEARS AFTER HELLER/MCDONALD. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 82(2).