# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create a new document and edit with others at the same time -- from your computer, phone or tablet. Get stuff done with or without an internet connection. Use Docs to edit Word files. Free from Google.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create a new document and edit with others at the same time -- from your computer, phone or tablet. Get stuff done with or without an internet connection. Use Docs to edit Word files. Free from Google.

# data[].attributes.body
After completing a quiz i am Moderate Republican.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 2016 U.S. presidential election is shaping up to be one of the most divisive contests in recent memory. To better understand where you land on the political spectrum, take our updated Political Party Quiz, developed by Pew Research Center in collaboration with the PBS NewsHour.

Questions gauge political values and an individual's stance on policies and range from government spending to gay marriage. Your score shows your likelihood of being Republican or Democrat and is based on a Pew March 2016 political survey.

Nationally, the race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is getting closer; an average of polls show Clinton's post-convention bounce is over. Lisa Desjardins examines both candidates' polling strengths and Carroll Doherty of the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post's Dan Balz join Judy Woodruff for a breakdown of the electorate and how the candidates can drive home their messages.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Where do you fit? The 2016 Political Party Quiz

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 2016 U.S. presidential election is shaping up to be one of the most divisive contests in recent memory. To better understand where you fit in, take our updated Political Party Quiz, developed by the Pew Research Center and the PBS NewsHour.

# data[].attributes.body
The National Rifle Association spent $1.7 million. All told, supporters of “2A” – the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms – spent at least $2.7 million in fluencing the debate in the Golden State since 2010.

# data[].attributes.body
Federal judge blocks new California gun control law requiring disposal of large-capacity magazines.

# data[].attributes.headline
Who Supports The Second Amendment That are famous 

# data[].attributes.subject
Who Supports The Second Amendment That are famous 

# data[].attributes.body
People that supports Bruce Willis,Chuck Norris, Kaya Jones.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federal Court Issues Major 2nd Amendment Ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SUPPORT Breaking News 365 CHANNEL WITH THE LINKS BELOW! Source Photo and Content: https://goo.gl/WUr8Hf Learn more about news on Youtube: https://goo.gl/Vgbn1H ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thank you so much. Wish you with good things, Please support growing channel by the press Subcribe Breaking News 365 Channel here: goo.gl/Vgbn1H Videos can use content-based copyright law contains reasonable use Fair Use (https://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/) Very excited to partner with other electronic newspaper pages.

# data[].attributes.headline
Against The Promotion of The Second Amendment

# data[].attributes.subject
Against The Promotion of The Second Amendment

# data[].attributes.body
hese companies are against the  Second Amendment gun control, obama, heller, nra

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a California law restricting concealed carry permits.

After postponing the order multiple times, the nation's highest court rejected a review of Peruta v. California. In the case, gun rights activists argued that a "good cause" requirement on concealed carry permits is too restrictive.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said the court should have reviewed the appellate ruling. Thomas said the decision not to hear the case "reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right."
What is this case about?
At issue in this case is concealed carry and whether a county can define "good cause" to carry a weapon outside of one's home as strictly as some California counties - specifically San Diego - do.

Edward Peruta and other gun owners reportedly attempted to obtain concealed carry permits in San Diego County, Calif. However, the sheriff's department - which handles permit requests - requires a specific "good cause" to obtain the permits, Fox News previously reported.

That "good cause" must be more specific than just a general concern for wellbeing; a person must list a precise fear, such as domestic violence or carrying a large amount of money.
What were other rulings?
A three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in 2014 that the policy stood in violation of the right to self-defense.

However, 11 judges in the same circuit later ruled 7-4 in a new hearing that the restrictions were permissible.
What's next for this case?
The nation's highest court hasn't always been so willing to take up Second Amendment cases, Law Newz reported earlier this month. And this particular case has been rescheduled multiple times.

The high court decided in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home.

But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states.

More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public.

With the Supreme Court declining to review the case, the California law will remain in place.

The high court also turned away a second case involving guns and the federal law that bars people convicted of crimes from owning guns.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US Supreme Court declines to take up 2nd Amendment case: A look at the California law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a California law restricting concealed carry permits. After postponing the order multiple times, the nation's highest court rejected a review of Peruta v. California. In the case, gun rights activists argued that a "good cause" requirement on concealed carry permits is too restrictive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right to possess firearms. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years until 2008, when the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 478 F.3d 370. The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of a Washington D.C. law which prohibited the possession of handguns. In a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The Court meticulously detailed the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention and proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms. The Court carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in dicta stated that firearm regulations would not implicate the Second Amendment if that weaponry cannot be used for law-abiding purposes. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

In 2010, the Court further strengthened Second Amendment protections in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 567 F.3d 856. The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionality of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. The Court lacked a majority on which specific clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.

Several questions still remain unanswered, however, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment. Generally, in constitutional law, courts subject statutes and ordinances to three levels of scrutiny, depending on the issue at hand:

Circuit Court opinions following Heller suggests that courts are willing to uphold the following:

Regulations prohibiting weapons on government property. US v Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009) (upholding defendant's conviction for bringing a handgun onto post office property).

Regulations prohibiting possession of a handgun as a juvenile delinquent. , 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (holding that the Juvenile Delinquency Act ban of juvenile possession of handguns did not violate the Second Amendment).

Regulations requiring a permit to carry concealed weapon. Kachalsky v County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2nd Cir. 2012) (holding that a New York law preventing individuals from obtaining a license to possess a concealed firearm in public for general purposes unless the individual showed proper cause did not violate the Second Amendment).

More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced its Heller ruling in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S.Ct. 1027 (2016). The Court struck down a Massachusetts statute which prohibited the possession or use of "stun guns" by finding that "stun guns" are protected under the Second Amendment. While ruling largely on the reasoning of Heller, the opinion was per curiam and therefore did not significantly add to Second Amendment jurisprudence.

In 2022, the Supreme Court further expanded upon the precedent set by Heller in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In Bruen, the Court struck down a New York law requiring parties interested in purchasing a handgun for the use of self-defense outside of the home to obtain a license because the law issued licenses on a "may-issue" rather than a "shall issue" basis. This "may issue" licensing method allowed state authorities to deny interested parties public use licenses for firearms if the interested party was unable to show "proper cause" as to why they have a heightened need for self-protection over the general population.

Furthermore, the Court disavowed the use of "means-end tests" many jurisdictions had adopted for the purposes of interpreting the Second Amendment, instead ruling that a Second Amendment analysis is limited to evaluating the historical nature of the right and whether a given use of a firearm or other weapon is deeply rooted in the history of the United States. Post- Bruen, courts can no longer use a standard scrutiny analysis like the one seen in Kachalsky v. County of Westchester to determine if a gun regulation is constitutional. Instead, a government wishing to place restrictions on firearm ownership must "affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms."

In a concurrence, Justice Kavanaugh joined by Justice Roberts emphasizes that Bruen is not intended to invalidate "shall-issue" licensing structures or other restrictions on firearm ownership including fingerprinting, background checks, mental health evaluations, mandatory training requirements, and potential other requirements. Additionally, this concurrence draws a line between objective gun control measures, where an individual must pass a set of predetermined requirements, which are constitutional, and subjective gun control measures, such as licensing at a state official's discretion, which are not.

It remains to be seen how the ruling in Bruen and the sentiments espoused in this concurrence will influence cases going forward.

See also: C onstitutional Amendment.

[Last updated in June of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope.

# data[].attributes.body
What is the second amendment?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Second Amendment: The Meaning, Original Intent, and Current Need

# data[].attributes.body
White House still supports Second Amendment after Las Vegas massacre.

# data[].attributes.body
The Second Amendment states: “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.” As Justice Scalia noted in his Heller decision, the amendment contains both a prefatory clause and an operative clause.

# data[].attributes.body
It is trump talking about bombs.