Second Amendment

It is important to notice that, if after first increasing or decreasing lls, there is a change of risk level, which brings it to the same level as the C3 risk, there is no need for a second amendment. This happens when C4 < C2 = C3 and C4 > C2 = C3. 

The second amendment to the Consumer Goods ordinance introduced a prohibition on the production, import and sale of certain garments and fabrics dyed with azo colorants which may split to cancerogenic aromatic amines. There are 24 prohibited amines in total. (See TRGS 614 [12]). The fifth amendment (1997) excluded those azo pigments from the prohibition of production and use, for which upon application of the official testing method [13] none of the listed aromatic amines can be detected. 

Commission Working Document WGA/003/00 rev.l - second amendment to Directive 89/107/EEC... 

Federal legislation for the postwar South led the Supreme Court to its first major confrontation with the Second Amendment. The case of United States V. Cruikshank (1876) arose from the trial of a band of white farmers (and probable KKK members) who had attacked and burned a courthouse... 

A lower court ordered Miller and Layton freed, ruling that the Second Amendment prevented Congress from regulating commerce in weapons. The two bootleggers promptly disappeared into the countryside. But... 

Ever since then, gun control advocates have argued that the Second Amendment thus applies only to bearing arms as part of an organized militia, which today is the National Guard ... 

Levinson points out that the Second Amendment debate reveals a curious reversal of conservatives and liberals from their usual positions on civil rights. Liberals interpret tbe rest of the Bill of Rights broadly without worrying too much about tbe social cost of freeing criminals. However, they want to interpret the Second Amendment narrowly because of what they consider to be tbe social costs of gun ownership. Conservatives, on the other hand, often complain about the courts finding new rights in broad interpretations of the Bill of Rights but favor a broader interpretation where the Second Amendment is concerned. 

Levinson urges that the scholarly community begin to take the Second Amendment seriously. Ta some extent, academic opinion has indeed shifted from a collectivist to an individualist interpretation of the Second Amendment. 

The federal appeals court overruled the district court with regard to the action taken against the defendant, but its decision left intact the lower court s conclusions about the Second Amendment. Meanwhile, however, other federal appeals circuits (notably the Ninth) have continued to deny the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. 

To add to the legal turmoil, in May 2001 U.S. attorney general John Ashcroft announced that the Justice Department would essentially adopt the individual rights approach to the Second Amendment, while at the same time saying that it would not challenge any existing federal gun laws. 

Although the Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the Emerson case, if the appeals circuits continue to issue conflicting decisions the pressure for a final resolution of the Second Amendment issue is likely to grow. 

King Charles I of England, quoted in David Flardy, Origins and Development of the Second Amendment. Chino Valley, Ariz. Blacksmith, 1986, p. 25. 

Roy G. Weatherap. Standing Armies and Armed Citizens An Historical Analysis of the Second Amendment. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 2 (Pall 1975), pp. 1000-1001. 

Sanford Levinson. The Embarrassing Second Amendment. Yale Law Journal 99 (1989), p. 637-659. 

Charles Schumer, quoted in Sam MacDonald, Gun Control s New Language How Anti-Terror Rhetoric Is Being Used Against the Second Amendment. Reason, vol. 33, March 2002, p. 16ff. 

Right to Bear Arms in state constitutions Bliss v. Commonwealth Aymette v. State Nunn v. State Andrews v. State In re Brickey City of Salina v. Blaksley Arnold v. Cleveland Benjamin v. Bailey Schubert v. DeBard Quilici v. Morton Grove Saturday Night Specials Kelley v. R.G. Industries, Inc. California Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of West Hollywood Second Amendment ... 

The appellants argued that the weapons laws violated both the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Tennessee Constitution. They noted that in the Aymette case the court ruled that the knife could be banned because it was not a weapon of war that would be protected by the constitution s interest in promoting the common defense. A pistol, they argued, was a weapon that could be used in war, and the state could not make a regulation that amounted to a prohibition of such a weapon. 

The State argued that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states. Further, even if [the State] can not prohibit carrying arms, they may, by regulation, determine what arms may be carried, what shall be proscribed may declare where they may be carried, and when they may be carried, as well as declare the mode. If weapons of warfare are protected by the... 

This decision is rather confusing. Some gun control advocates say that it means that the right to bear arms is not protected at all by the Second Amendment. Gun rights advocates, however, say that it is simply a statement of the basic doctrine that the Constitution does not create rights but declares or affirms rights arising out of the common or natural law. 

What is undisputed is that the Supreme Court decided that the Second Amendment, whatever sort of right it declared, was a restraint only on Congress, not on the states, localities, or citizens. As noted earlier, many parts of the Bill of Rights would later be incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment and enforced against the states (notably, to protect the civil rights of African Americans and other minorities), but to date the Second Amendment has not been included in this process. 

The State made the usual argument that the Second Amendment was not applicable to the states. It also argued that the prohibition of private militias was not in conflict with the power of Congress to oversee the organization of state militias. 

The Court sided with the State s argument. There is no constitutionally protected right to march as part of a private armed militia. The Second Amendment does not apply to the states. 

This decision gained some recent relevance with the formation of many private militias in the 1980s. Gun control advocates see Presser as denying any constitutional protection to such organizations, as well as reaffirming that the Second Amendment is not a bar to state or local gun regulations. 

The basic issue was whether the weapons law violated either the Second Amendment or the Idaho constitution. The latter states that The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law. ... 

The decision suggests that the state s police power can be used to regulate how weapons can be carried but not completely prohibit it. It is also one of the relatively few decisions that seems to also apply the federal Second Amendment to the state, though it can be viewed as superfluous to the state constitution. 

This view of the state constimtional provision is close to the viewpoint of most modern gun control advocates with regard to the Second Amendment Only the right of the state to form and operate a militia is protected the legislature is free to regulate or even prohibit the individual carrying of weapons. Certainly few people would assert that anyone has the right to carry a weapon while drunk. 

The lower court judge threw out the case on the grounds that the law violated the Second Amendment. The government appealed. Meanwhile, the bootleggers disappeared. When the case was finally heard in the Supreme Court, only the government was represented. 

---