steven penna **MUSCARELLO v. UNITED STATES**

muscarello and and a group of friend planned to attack and steal the majawana from a group of drug dealers. The police force caught news of and planned to interfear with the plans before the mugging wiuld take place. That night muscarello and his gang attacked the drug dealers later that night. before any1 was hurt the police interfeared before any1 was shot or hurt but muscarello had pulled out his gun. later he explained to the judge that his second amendment had been voilated and his was arested just beacase he had a gun. The judge had tock this in to considerationb but then the police force explanied the that had stopped the crime only when muscarello had pulled out his gun. The judge had realieased that this was not self defence in amy way and realised that it was meant as a threat. the judges finale dicision of being sent to jail still stands

Claire Crimando is doing Oregon vs. Mitchell
1.Claire Crimando
2.Oregon v. Mitchell(1970)
3. R. Mitchell suggested for the state of Oregon to lower their voting age to 18. Oregon opposed.
4.Oregon lost case.
5.Country uneffected




1.Juhie Patel
2. United States v Miller (1939)
3.Miller andd a friend transported an unlicensed shotgun. It was taken to the Disrtict Court but they appealed it. They argued that it went against their second amendment right. It was then taken to the Supreme Court.
4. The Supreme Court decided that the second amendment protected them.
5. It lets America know that you can have a gun for protection.


1.Tommy Cerene
2.UNITED STATES v. SCHWIMMER, 279 U.S. 644 (1929)
3.Schwimmer was a pacifist who would not take the oath of allegiance to become a naturalized citizen. She was born in Hungary and while in the United States delivering a lecture she decided that she wanted to become a US citizen. When asked if she would be willing to "take up arms in defense of her country" she responded no. She stated that she believed in the democratic ideal, but she stated that she was an uncompromising pacifist. “My cosmic consciousness of belonging to the human family is shared by all those who believe that all human beings are the children of God.”
4.The Court held in a 6-3 decision that citizenship should be denied.
5.This decision ment that Schwimmer could not take oath because she would not stand up for her new country.


1. Graham Jensen
2. Romer v. Evans (1996)
3.this case was about civil and state rights. It prevented any city, town, or county from taking any Legislative, executive, or judicial action to protect homosexual citizens from discrimination.
4. The decision was a 6-3 that amendment 2 was unconstitutional.
5. The impact on the country is a change because now homosexuals will not have any special rights
_

1. Garrett Abbey
2. perpich v. department of defense
3.
The case of Perpich v. Department of Defense (1990) concerned the training of the state militia, and a dispute between the state governor of Minnesota and the Department of Defense over whose authority was plenary in doing so. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution reserves the training of the militia to the states according to the discipline prescribed by Congress, but also gives Congress the power to raise and support armies for a period not exceeding two years for a given appropriation
4.The Court held that Article I, Section 8's additional grant of power to provide for the calling of the militia into the federal service may be combined with their power to raise and support armies all at once, and hence the National Guard has no immunity from being trained as part of the Army; the power to call up the militia is not excluded as being separate from the army powers, and is simply an additional grant of power.
5.This case is significant for Second Amendment case law in that it recognizes that the National Guard is one modern form of the militia under federal law.
_


1. Ky Novotny
2. Presser vs. Illiniois (1885)
3. All able bodied men (18-45) should be subjected to military service
4. Decision: Illiniois was victorious and the challenger was convicted
5. This amendment I think had no effect on the country
_
_

1.CLAIRE CRIMANDO(SORRY THIS IS SUPPOSED 2 BE ON THE 1st AMENDMENT, BUT IT SAYS THAT IT CANT SAVE SO IT'LL BE ON HERE UNTIL LATER!!*SRY)
2. United Sates vs. Eichmen
3.1990
4.Thought was limiting freedom of speech(burning flag)
5.Eichmen won
*country has more freedom

1. Mariel Householder
2. Silverman v. United States 1961
3.

shane k. is doing : U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez

1Jake Werkmeister
2Wright vs United States
3Wright had in his posession a machine gun and pipe bombs. He went to court for having weapons without a license. He said that the 2nd amendment had protected him from this.
4The decision was that the 2nd amendment had a limit that meant he couldn't have an AK-47.
5I totally agree with the decision it's not like you can have a tank in your garage and not except someone to say something to you.

1. Devin O'Sullivan

2.Lewis v. United States

3. Lewis was jailed for breaking and entering with a weapon, attempted burglary. 16 years after his imprisonment began, he was arrested again for possessing a firearm. A federal statute punishes harshly on a person who commits a felony then bears a firearm.

4. They rejected his appeal, stating that his bearing a firearm did not effect the militia or help keep a militia.

5. This decision made the right to bear arms more limited.

steven penna **MUSCARELLO v. UNITED STATES**


1.Tommy cerene
2.UNITED STATES v. SCHWIMMER, 279 U.S. 644 (1929)
3.Schwimmer was a pacifist who would not take the oath of allegiance to become a naturalized citizen. She was born in Hungary and while in the United States delivering a lecture she decided that she wanted to become a US citizen. When asked if she would be willing to "take up arms in defense of her country" she responded no. She stated that she believed in the democratic ideal, but she stated that she was an uncompromising pacifist. “My cosmic consciousness of belonging to the human family is shared by all those who believe that all human beings are the children of God.”
4.The Court held in a 6-3 decision that citizenship should be denied.
5.This decision ment that Schwimmer could not take oath because she would not stand up for her new country.


1. Graham Jensen
2. Romer v. Evans (1996)
3.this case was about civil and state rights. It prevented any city, town, or county from taking any Legislative, executive, or judicial action to protect homosexual citizens from discrimination.
4. The decision was a 6-3 that amendment 2 was unconstitutional.
5. The impact on the country is a change because now homosexuals because homosexuals will not have any special right
_

1. Garrett Abbey
2. perpich v. department of defense
3.
The case of Perpich v. Department of Defense (1990) concerned the training of the state militia, and a dispute between the state governor of Minnesota and the Department of Defense over whose authority was plenary in doing so. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution reserves the training of the militia to the states according to the discipline prescribed by Congress, but also gives Congress the power to raise and support armies for a period not exceeding two years for a given appropriation
4.The Court held that Article I, Section 8's additional grant of power to provide for the calling of the militia into the federal service may be combined with their power to raise and support armies all at once, and hence the National Guard has no immunity from being trained as part of the Army; the power to call up the militia is not excluded as being separate from the army powers, and is simply an additional grant of power.
5.This case is significant for Second Amendment case law in that it recognizes that the National Guard is one modern form of the militia under federal law.
_


1. Ky Novotny
2. Presser vs. Illiniois (1885)
3. All able bodied men (18-45) should be subjected to military service
4. Decision: Illiniois was victorious and the challenger was convicted
5. This amendment I think had no effect on the country
_
_

1.CLAIRE CRIMANDO(SORRY THIS IS SUPPOSED 2 BE ON THE 1st AMENDMENT, BUT IT SAYS THAT IT CANT SAVE SO IT'LL BE ON HERE UNTIL LATER!!*SRY)
2. United Sates vs. Eichmen
3.1990
4.Thought was limiting freedom of speech(burning flag)
5.Eichmen won
*country has more freedom
MARIEL IS DOING SILVERMAN VS. UNITED STATES

shane k. is doing : U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez

Jake is doing Burton VS Us


1.Claire Romine
2. U.S v. Emerson (1998)
3. In U.S v. Emerson Mr. and Mrs. Emerson were getting a divorce. Mrs. Emerson asked for a restraining order and at the hearing she was represented by an attorney and Mr. Emerson appeared pro se. She also wanted custody of their minor child and money fro Mr. Emerson. During the hearing Mr. Emerson called the man that Mrs. Emerson had been having an affair with. He threatened to kill him over the phone.
4.They granted Mrs. Emerson to have a temporary restraining order from Mr. Emerson and Mr. Emerson was not allowed to carry any firearm. They also said that he was violating the 2nd Amendment because only the Militia may protect the State and he was not in the Militia.
5. The desicion meant that he could not see Mrs. Emerson or their child temporary. It impacted the Country because it keeps everybody else safe because nobody but the Militia is allowed to keep security if it is necessary

1.Sam Mornhineway
2.Parker v. District of Columbia(2001)
3. Parker v. District of Columbia restricted residents, except active and retired law enforcement officers, from owning a handgun, while also requiring that rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock.
4.The District of Columbia filed a cert petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to accept an appeal and the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit denied the request to rehear the case, by a 6-4 vote.
5. It impacted on the country because if you weren't aloud to caring a gun people could get hurt and they weren't aloud to use it for your safety.




1.Casey Bowlby
2.Verdugo-Urguidez 1990
3. Verdugo was a mexican citizen who snuck drugs into this country.
4. He was arrested for smuggling the drugs into this country, and soon after the arrest the drug enforcement administration agents and mexican officials searshed his mexican residence and seized certain documents.
5. The district court said he could supress the evidence, concluding that the 4th amendment which protects the people against unreasonable search and seizures applied to the searches and that the D.E.A agents failed to justify searching the premises without a warrant, and the court of appeals affirmed.



Haley Chute is doing Nelson vs. U.S.

1,Rachel Sanford
2.lewis vs. us (1980)
3.A man was arresed for entering with a weapon to attemp burgalery. after that



Jack Velella
Muscarello v. United States
In this case police officers found a handgun in a glove compartment of his truck which Muscarello used to sell drugs.It was challanged because Muscarello explained that it was not his truck. then they went to court over if it was his truck, handgun, and drugs.
The decision of this case was that this stuff was Muscarello's, one of the main things that proofed that was the officers found finger prints on the truck that matched his.
This decision means that people should not have drugs. It teaches our country not to break any laws that
involve drugs


1. Mitchell Fliss
2. Illinois vs. Wardlow (2000)
3. At his trial he was at trial for his unlawful possession of a gun, William Wardlow argued that the police did not have grounds to stop him. The trial court rejected this argument and he was convicted, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the conviction and the Supreme court accepted it for reveiw.
4. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that police may consider a suspect's unprovoked flight as one factor contributing to “reasonable suspicion” justifying an investigatory stop.
5. Shows citizens their are certain reasons and times when your flight from police is alright.

1: Devin Hogan
2:U.S. vs. Cruikshank
3:The defendent possessed guns that were intended to kill african americans
4:The indictment was found faulty
5:This case insured that you can possess guns

Ky is doing miller vs. texas
Claire C: oregon vs. mitchell
1. Billy Bliss
2. Smith vs. Massachusetts 2005
3. Smith was accused of shooting firearwith barrels that were over 16 inches long.
4. Massachusetts found Smith not guilty because they didn't have enough evidence to prove that Smith was guilty.
5. this means that Smith was able to win this court battle because Massachusetts could not come up with enough evidence to find Smith guilty.


1.Brad Pettigrew
2.Presser vs. People of Illinois 1886
3.Presser paraded people through town armed with guns.
4.The court ruled that the state had no control over prohibiting people from having guns.
5.People could organize militia parades. People would not have to have state permission to organize militia parades.


Juhie is doin Miller vs. U.S.

1.Kevin Schoenfeld
2.Burton vs. Sills 1968
3.Members of NJ sportsman clubs and gun dealers brought an action against the Attorney General of NJ to declare unconstitutional the state's gun-control law, which the plaintiffs claimed placed overly broad registration requirements.
4.The Court ruled in favor of Sills due to the fact that the law properly placed restrictions on certain citizens who would not be considered "fit" for carrying a gun.
5.The Courts ruling is important because the Court stated that the 2nd Amendment does not give an individual an absolute right to bear arms and that the State has a right to keep certain people from carrying a gun.

Jack v is doing Muscarello v. US ;)



ERIC SMUDA IS DOING Distict of Columbia vs. et.al. vs. Heller Washington D.C. 1993
1. Eric Smuda
2. District of Columbia vs. et. al. vs. Heller Washington D.C. 1993
3. The Amendment was challenged because security guard Heller, while living in Washington D.C., had a gunin his house. Heller argued that Washington D.C. was violating his 2nd Amendment rights by not letting him bear arms.
4. The decision in the case has not yet been reached.
5. If Heller wins the case it means that Washington D.C. will have to allow the use of its residents to bear arms. If Heller loses, everything will stay the same.


1.Scott Brady
2. U.S. v Johson [March 1, 2000]
3. This is about Johnson having a weapon for self defence. He was in jail and he asked to apeal his sentence.
4.In the end the cases were effected and he was in jail less time then he was supposed to be.



1.Tom Keller
2.U.S. v. Miller (1939)
3.The amendment was challenged because Miller had an unlicensed sawed off shotgun, later finding out it was shut down, but then found a sub 18 inch shotgun on Millers truck.
4.The decision was that the treasury arrested him for not paying the taxes on the shortened shotgun.
5.The decision meant that he had to pay taxes on the merchandise he had. Also that he has to get a license for fire arms. The impact was an example to show what would happen if you don't pay taxes or certify or get a license for things that need one.


1.Alyssa Fay
2.U.S. v. Cruikshank(1875)
3.Louisiana tried to kill African Americans with home held shot-guns.
4.The people from Lousiana got put in jail for a while and the African Amenricans were from from now on.
5. The impact ment that Lousiana had to respect othe people no matter what the race or religion etc. This healped people realize what they were doing.


1. Austin Giardullo
2. Dred Scott vs. Sanford(1856)
3. In the case Dred Scott was fighting for his freedom and it was brought up if slaves had the right to carry and keep arms.
4. The right to keep and carry arms was given to slaves and all U.S. citizens.
5. Back then the slaves were, after th decision, allowed to carry arms and were given one of their first freedoms as a group.



1.Danny Da Silva
2. U.S. vs. Lopez
3. Alfonso Lopez a 12th grade San Antonio, Texas student was charged when he was found concealing a weapon to school.
4. He ended up serving 6months and 2 years ofsupervised realease
5. The impact was that the 2nd amendment did not protect against public weapon carrying

1. Bianca Faria
2. Spencer v. Kemna, 1998
3. During Spencer's three year sentence convictions for stealing, he was later released, but his parole was cancelled and he was returned to prison. Spencer felt that he did not have all of his rights in the parole revocation proceedings.
4. The Court of Appeals affirmed and the court decided to dismiss Spencer's petition as moot.
5. This decision meant that because of Spencer's expiration of sentence, it caused his petition to be unvaluable because it did not present an Article III case. This has an impact on our country because it is made sure that people in prison have their second Amendment rights fulfilled.

Sasha J.
Caron vs. United States 1998
This case was applied to this Amendment because federal law forbids a person convicted of a serious crime to have any firearm and requires that a three-time serious felon who violates receive an extended sentence but Caron was a ex-felon possesed six rifles and shotguns and was arrested because of the law above but claimed that it was violating his right to posses a firearm.
The decision was 6-3 in favor of Caron.
This really didn't affect the country because of the many cases just like it.



1. Mark Donahue
is doing
2. Cases v. U.S. 1942
3. the federal fire arms act staes than nobody can have a gun more than 18 inches long. During the fire arms act, cases proved that this was unconstitutional because it violated the second amendment right to bear arms.
4. Cases was convicted and the Nation won
5. Cases should have won that case. this shows that when a law is made not even the constitution can override it. during that act, nobody could have a gun with a barrel over 18 inches long. that continued that way for a while even when the constitution opposed it.


1.Christy Smetana
2.Hickman v. Block(1995)
3.Douglas Ray Hickman appeals from an order granting summary judgment in favor of the appellees, who denied Hickman a concealed weapons permit.
4.The decision was that Block won the case.
5.In this case even though the person has the second amendment right to bear arms doesn't mean there are no limits.


1.sam margalotti
2.U.S. vs. Miller, March 30, 1939
3.Miller did not have a license for a sawed off shot gun, the federal fire arm act says you can have a 12 guage shot gun if the barrle is more than 18 inches long.
4.Miller had to pay the taxes for having a sawed off shot gun and having no license for it.
5.it meant that he had to pay a large sum of money that he hadn't payed for the shot gun and for not haveing a license and it being shorter than the law required. it had an affect because even though the constitution says that you can have a gun there are limits on the gun and it's size and if you have a license for it.

alex cervino is doing lewis v U.S

1.Matthew L is doing
2.Albright vs. OliverU.S. janury 24 1994
3.Albright sold a look a like substance to a third party and the court found probiale cause to blind Albright over for triul.
4.
5.


1 Andrew Kero
2 U.S. vs. Cody (Dec. 4 1998)
3 cody was charged 5 counts. 2 for purpose to sell marijuana. 2 counts for makeing marijuana, and 1 count for carrying a firearm.
4 Cody was sentance 120 months' imprisonment, and another 60 months for holding a firearm.
5 The impact was, he wasnt doing drugs. He had a gun, but wasnt takeing out. To back him up. The constitution says, the right to bear arms.

1. Maggie DePaul
2.
Miller v. Texas TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER -1894__
3. Amendment 2 applies to this case because Miller suggested that Presser did not definitively rule out incorporation of the Second Amendment.
4. When it was deciding whether to accept federal funds for the coming school year, the University’s sovereign immunity to Section 504 claims for the coming year was intact, and the State was faced with a clear choice. It could decline federal funds and maintain its sovereign immunity to suits under the Rehabilitation Act, or it could accept funds and be subject to private suits under for the foregoing reasons, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar Plaintiffs’ Section 504 claims against the University.
5.This decision means that the school could decline federal funds or accept the funds.



Vasil is doing Presser v. illinois 1886

ana is doing Printz v. United States-
No. 95-1478. Argued December 3, 1996
Decided June 27, 1997 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act provisions require the Attorney General to establish a national system for instantly checking prospective handgun purchasers' backgrounds, note following 18 U.S.C. � 922 and command the "chief law enforcement officer" (CLEO) of each local jurisdiction to conduct such checks and perform related tasks on an interim basis until the national system becomes operative, �922(s). Petitioners, the CLEOs for counties in Montana and Arizona, filed separate actions challenging the interim provisions' constitutionality. In each case, the District Court held that the background check provision was unconstitutional, but concluded that it was severable from the remainder of the Act, effectively leaving a voluntary background check system in place. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding none of the interim provisions unconstitutional.

Tara Sanders is doing District of Columbia vs. Heller

1.Dan Hawk
2.Small v. U.S. 2005
3.This case deals with the 2nd amendment because Small felt he was being wrongly stripped of his rights to keep and bear arms. Ten years prior to purchasing the pistol in Pennsylvania, United States, he was arrested and convicted for violating the Japanese Act Controlling the Possession of Firearms and Swords, the Gunpowder Control Act, and the Customs Act. Because of his conviction, he was arrested for violation of United States code 922 [g] when he purchased the pistol in Pennsylvania. Code 922 [g] states that no convicted felon may purchase a firearm. When he purchased said pistol, he was given the normal form to fill out. Regarding the question as to whether or not he had been convicted in "any court", he said no. He was prosecuted and convicted under 922 [g]. He then appealed to the 3rd circuit of appeals, arguing that because his conviction was not domestic, and he didn't receive a fair trial in Japan, that he did not violate 922 [g]. Said court upheld the district ruling saying that the district court "properly determined the fairness of the Japanese court's proceedings as well as the opinion that "any court" applies to both foreign and domestic courts." Small then filed a petition for certiorary to the United States Supreme Court. The Court decided to Hear the case.
4. The court ruled in favor of Small. Many justices dissented. The dissent was that "any court" should have a literal meaning and include foreign courts. The majority ruling said that to interpret "any court" literally, would create "anomalies". The majority said that it was not irrational enough not to include foreign courts in code 922[g].
5. This meant that someone convicted of a crime in another country could come to America and legally purchase a firearm. This could mean in increase in gun crime through out the country. It also may mean that someone who really wants to do us harm, but was convicted in another country could legally purchase a firearm.

Jon D'Agati is doing Bailey vs. United States



Vasil is doing Presser v. illinois 1886//**
1.Vasil Mico
2.Presser v. Illinois (1886)
3.Presser was roaming the streets of Chicago and with him an unauthorized body of men caring and bearing arms. The state of Illinois stated that they did not have a license to have to have weapons. Presser argued that this was protected against his second amendment rights to keep and bear arms.
4.Presser was found guilty. The supreme court stated that he needed approval by the state to drill and parade on the streets.
5.The decisions mean that you may not assemble an army to walk the streets with weapons. It impacts are country by people wouldn't fear a group of individuals parading down the streets bearing arms.






1.Brian English
2.Dred Shot v. Sandford (1856)
3.Dred Scott sued for his freedom since he was in a free state and territory that he was legally free.
4.He was not allowed his freedom.
5.No State can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution, introduce a new member into the political community created by the Constitution of the United States. This was the 2nd unconstitutional case the first one was Marbury vs. Madison. this caseade people think of slavery different.

1. Alex Cervino
2. Lewis v. United States (1982)
3. John L. Lewis was injured by a vehicle ow that he wasned and operated by a federal reserve bank
4. The District Court dismissed the case by ruling that the federal reserve bank was not a federal agency within meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act and the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction
5. Serving a federal purpose does not necessarily imply being a federal agency.

1.Christian Gutowski
2.randall et al. v. sorrell et al.
3.