# data[].attributes.body
1. Each table group needs to find a different current event article that relates to an Amendment right(s).
2. Briefly summarize the article.
3. Explain how it relates to the Amendment(s).
4. Write your opinion on the topic of the article.
5. Cite the article in MLA format.
http://www.citationmachine.net/mla/cite-a-website

# data[].attributes.body
landlords argue that the bill of rights with drive the prices up for everyone due to unsafe apartments. The proposal would make it illegal to reject a rental application for things like arrest or previous conviction. This relates to the 5th amendment because of  being held accountable for past actions

“'I'm Not Your Enemy': Tenants Bill of Rights Debate Riles up Many in KC Rental Industry.” FOX 4 Kansas City WDAF-TV | News, Weather, Sports, 5 Dec. 2019, https://fox4kc.com/2019/12/04/im-not-your-enemy-tenants-bill-of-rights-debate-riles-up-many-in-kc-rental-industry/.

# data[].attributes.body
Summary:

The movement of counties declaring themselves 'Second Amendment sanctuaries' – a conservative spin on 'sanctuary cities,' which vowed not to work with ICE to deport undocumented immigrants – began shortly after the election earlier this month in which Democrats won full control of the General Assembly for the first time in decades. To counter possible gun control laws, the concept of becoming a 'Second Amendment sanctuary' means that a county expresses its intent that its public funds not be used to restrict Second Amendment rights.

Opinion:

We all agree that this should not be located in just one area but spread out throughout the world. This creates a separation between people which leads up to protesting.

Stewart, Caleb. “Rockingham County Sets Details of Hearing on '2nd Amendment Sanctuary' Proposal.” WHSV, https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Rockingham-County-sets-details-of-hearing-on-2nd-Amendment-sanctuary-proposal-565801311.html.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in a gun rights case that, if the justices decide to review it, could have major consequences for how the Second Amendment is interpreted. But based on what was discussed at the hearing-and, at least as importantly, what was not-the highly anticipated case may not end with a bang.

The case arises from a New York City gun licensing scheme that limited transportation of firearms registered to a particular location. Members of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association sued the city, arguing a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. They needed to transport their guns-locked and unloaded-to firing ranges, shooting competitions, and second homes, and said the constitutional right wasn't "homebound."

Although the lower courts sided with the city, New York state later changed its law and the city adjusted its licensing scheme to allow for transportation in a move justice Neil Gorsuch today called "a herculean late-breaking effort" to avoid constitutional review by the Supreme Court.

Arguably the case is now moot, as the limits on transporting the guns that plaintiffs initially complained about no longer exist. What the justices must decide now, before they even think about the Second Amendment, is whether or not they can decide the case.

The court isn't allowed to take cases that don't represent live controversies, according to the Constitution. If there is no legal issue and no relief the court can offer the complaining party, then it's not supposed to issue what would essentially be an advisory opinion.

Theoretically, that's what a decision in this case would be, which is why in the end, there may be no decision at all, just a technical resolution on mootness. That would please many, including gun control activists who stood outside the courtroom in the cold and rain, waving signs saying, "Gun laws save lives." Those who support expansive gun rights and would like to see a bench dominated by conservative justices take up the Second Amendment and issue a broad ruling that limits restrictions on firearm ownership, however, would be disappointed.

"You're asking us to opine on a law that's not on the books," justice Sonia Sotomayor told Paul Clement, the attorney representing the gun group.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked him, "What's left of this case? The petitioners got all they wanted."

Clement countered that his clients did not yet get what they wanted and could still suffer consequences from the old law in the future. More importantly, he said, the new law did not give them what a decision in this case will-a declaration that the previous law was unconstitutional. The lawyer also argued that the new law leaves questions about the limits on transport: Can gun owners stop for coffee or gas when traveling with a firearm, for example, under the requirement their travel be "direct and uninterrupted"?

Sotomayor conceded that there may be questions remaining about the new law but indicated they were for another matter and not this case. Indeed, Clement couldn't seem to move the discussion with the justices much beyond mootness.

The conservative justices, who gun rights activists might have hoped would decide the case in their favor, were unusually subdued during the hearing, speaking little (although perhaps that's because their minds are made up). Chief justice John Roberts didn't chime in during Clement's arguments and spoke only late in the city's presentation to ask if there was any way gun owners could in the future be prejudiced by the past law's existence and to inquire about mootness. Justice Clarence Thomas kept his own counsel, as ever, and justice Brett Kavanaugh, who is inclined to ask questions normally, was mum. Gorsuch questioned both sides.

Only justice Samuel Alito clearly considered the controversy ripe for decision, insisting that it is "unfair" to the gun group to decide the case is moot. He pushed New York City's counsel to discuss the Second Amendment and then injected a hypothetical situation for contemplation, asking whether a gun owner from the city could now stop at their mother's house and help out with chores for an hour or whether this would violate the law.

New York City's lawyer stuck firm to his position that any issues are for another case about the new law and any future violations. He continually assured the justices that there would be no consequences for gun owners as a result of the past city rules and that in the future any "reasonably necessary" stops would not constitute a violation of new laws.

"Is a cup of coffee reasonably necessary," Gorsuch asked him.

Counsel said yes, stops for coffee, food, and gas were all fine and won't be prosecuted as violations. But he admitted that he didn't know yet, because the city hadn't contemplated the scenario. "There may be a controversy here," he concluded. "But it's a new one."

The justices have until late June to decide whether they think he's right.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Justices fire warning shots at Supreme Court hearing on gun rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in a gun rights case that, if the justices decide to review it, could have major consequences for how the Second Amendment is interpreted. But based on what was discussed at the hearing-and, at least as importantly, what was not-the highly anticipated case may not end with a bang.

# data[].attributes.headline
Josh and Maddox- Limiting excessive fines, Supreme Court rules against seizing a drug seller's luxury SUV

# data[].attributes.subject
Josh and Maddox- Limiting excessive fines, Supreme Court rules against seizing a drug seller's luxury SUV

# data[].attributes.body
2. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Constitution's ban on excessive fines (guaranteed by the 8th Amendment) applies to punishments imposed by the states, as well as by the federal government. This proved quite beneficial for an Indiana heroin dealer, allowing him to keep his Range Rover SUV that was seized away after he pleaded guilty to selling heroin to undercover officers.
3. The Eighth Amendment protects citizens from unfair punishment, as well as excessive bail and fines. In this case, the Supreme court decided that taking the man's car would be taking from him a quantity of money deemed too high to be reasonable. Because of this, the man was able to keep his car. Usually, the Constitution's ban on excessive fines applies to punishments on a federal level, and in the past the Supreme court has never explicitly stated that this right applies to states, making this case one of importance.
4. I thought that this article was very interesting. I was surprised to see the Supreme Court apply the protection from excessive fines to states rather than only federal cases, and was also surprised by the fact that the decision was unanimous. I thought that the ruling was fair, but it still shocked me to see a convicted drug dealer getting the benefit of the doubt.

Williams, Pete. "Limiting Excessive Fines, Supreme Court Rules Against Seizing a Drug Seller's Luxury SUV." NBC News, 20 Feb. 2019, www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/limiting-excessive-fines-supreme-court-rules-against-seizing-drug-seller-n973571.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/02/us/politics/second-amendment-supreme-court.html
2. The article mostly goes into detail about a dispute in the court over something involving the Second Amendment. The dispute was over a law that forbid the transportation of guns outside of homes, only letting citizens to take them to a select few shooting ranges only, not allowing them to be transported anywhere else. By the end, the court justices deemed the law unconstitutional.
3. It relates to the Second Amendment because the entire article revolves around a court case involving a law that restricts the rights given in the second amendment.
4. We think the law is unconstitutional, and that it infringes on the right stated within in the second amendment.
5. Liptak, Adam. "Second Amendment Case May Fizzle Out at the Supreme Court." NY Times, The New York Times, 2 Dec. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/12/02/us/politics/second-amendment-supreme-court.html.

# data[].attributes.body
The article is about how the Supreme Court won't expand gun rights in New York. This relates to the 2nd amendment because it is about the right to bear arms. We agree with the decision that the Supreme Court made.

Citation:
Tarlo, Shira. “Supreme Court Appears Unlikely to Expand Gun Rights in Major Second Amendment Case.” Salon, Salon.com, 3 Dec. 2019, https://www.salon.com/2019/12/03/supreme-court-appears-unlikely-to-expand-gun-rights-in-major-second-amendment-case/.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After nearly a decade of silence on guns, the Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments on the first major Second Amendment case to come before the high court since 2010.

Over the past 10 years, the nation has experienced an uptick in gun violence, and lower courts have issued more than 1,000 rulings seeking to apply the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which established an individual right to keep a handgun at home for self-protection. Two years later, the court clarified that the right applies nationwide.

The new case concerns a dispute over a New York gun restriction, which has since been changed. Because the city repealed the law after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, New York argued that the case should be considered moot. And, based on the comments made on the bench Monday, the Supreme Court appears unlikely to deliver a major win to gun rights activists.

Since 2010, justices have largely avoided taking up a follow-up case to Heller. The court's willingness to consider this case, even though the law at issue was repealed, had gun rights advocates hoping it would significantly expand the right to bear arms outside of the home.

Gun control activists, by contrast, voiced concern that the Supreme Court's new conservative majority could produce a decision that would roll back many of the local gun restrictions enacted over the past decade. They were especially concerned that Brett Kavanaugh, who succeeded Anthony Kennedy, may be further to the right on the issue. Kavanaugh said nothing during Monday's argument.

The New York gun law that gave rise to the case said licensed individuals could take a handgun outside the home to a nearby shooting range, provided it was unloaded and in a locked container. The gun could not be taken beyond the city's limits, the law said.

Three local handgun owners and the New York state affiliate of the National Rifle Association - a national gun rights lobby group closely aligned with President Donald Trump and other Republicans - challenged the provision, arguing that it violated the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms. They said the law was too restrictive and prohibited a New Yorker to transport his gun to his "second home for the core constitutional purpose of self-defense or to an upstate county to participate in a shooting competition, or even across the bridge to a neighboring city for target practice." Two lower courts rejected their claims and upheld the law.

After the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, the city repealed the rule and replaced it with a statute that prohibits such restrictions from being adopted in the future. The court's four liberal justices - Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan - suggested that they now considered the case moot.

"What's left of this case?" Ginsburg reportedly asked. "Petitioners got all the relief they sought."

"You're asking us to take a case in which the other side has thrown in the towel and opine on a law that's not on the books anymore," Sotomayor added.

Conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, by contrast, appeared to indicate their beliefs that the controversy remains ongoing, with Alito reportedly arguing that the city laws that remain in effect still violate the Second Amendment. Gorsuch, meanwhile, said that the new law does not specifically protect the gun owners if they make a stop on the way to an out-of-state gun range. He asked why that point is not enough of a restriction on gun rights to take up the case.

But Richard Dearing, a lawyer for the city, reportedly said no one would be punished for making such brief breaks, which he said were "entirely permissible."

The court will issue its decision by late June.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court appears unlikely to expand gun rights in 2nd Amendment case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After nearly a decade of silence on guns, the Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments on the first major Second Amendment case to come before the high court since 2010. Over the past 10 years, the nation has experienced an uptick in gun violence, and lower courts have issued more than 1,000 rulings seeking to apply the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/us/philadelphia-shooting-gun-control.html

2. Briefly summarize the article.

After multiple policemen were shot, the city mayor of Philadelphia fights for stricter gun regulations, but state laws have overridden his efforts.

3. Explain how it relates to the Amendment(s).

This article relates to the second amendment because it is relating to American’s gun rights, and regulating are selection of guns or removing all of them entirely.

4. Write your opinion on the topic of the article.

Madison: There should be more restrictions on guns and mental health tests put in place for people that try to buy one. Many accidents happen and could have been prevented if there had been restrictions put in place.

Ava: In America, we have many different gun related incidents that happen way too often. These gun related incidents happen because of the lack of restrictions on what guns are made, sold, and distributed. If we compare America to Germany, we can see Germany has way less incidents involving guns. This can be related to their stricter processes and steps to buy a gun. If Americans adopted these steps, mass shootings and gun related incidents could decrease.

Kyle: I think there should be regulations because guns are very powerful and dangerous and require training. I also want regulations to remove strong guns and leave the weaker ones so people can’t just open fire and kill others very fast.

5. Cite the article in MLA format.

Davey, Monica, and Adeel Hassan. “When Cities Try to Limit Guns, State Laws Bar the Way.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 15 Aug. 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/us/philadelphia-shooting-gun-control.html.