翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ United States v. Detroit & Cleveland Navigation Co. ・ United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co. ・ United States v. Dinitz ・ United States v. Dion ・ United States v. Dominguez Benitez ・ United States v. Dotterweich ・ United States v. Dougherty ・ United States v. Drayton ・ United States v. Drescher ・ United States v. Drew ・ United States v. DuBay ・ United States v. Dunn ・ United States v. E. C. Knight Co. ・ United States v. Eichman ・ United States v. Elcom Ltd. ・ United States v. Emerson ・ United States v. Enmons ・ United States v. Extreme Associates, Inc. ・ United States v. Felix ・ United States v. Fenwick ・ United States v. Feola ・ United States v. Flores-Montano ・ United States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co. ・ United States v. Fordice ・ United States v. Forty Barrels & Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola ・ United States v. Franklin ・ United States v. Freed ・ United States v. Fricosu ・ United States v. Fuentes ・ United States v. Garcia Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク United States v. Emerson ： ウィキペディア英語版 United States v. Emerson ''United States v. Emerson'', 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), ''cert. denied'', 536 U.S. 907 (2002), is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit holding that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees individuals the right to bear arms. The case involved a challenge to the Constitutionality of , a federal statute which prohibited the transportation of firearms or ammunition in interstate commerce by persons subject to a court order that, by its explicit terms, prohibits the use of physical force against an intimate partner or child. The Fifth Circuit engaged in an extensive analysis of the text and history of the Second Amendment and its attendant caselaw (including many state supreme court decisions), and it ultimately determined that the Second Amendment does guarantee individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Nonetheless, the court held that the particular deprivation of the right to bear arms in the case before it did not violate the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court denied review of the Fifth Circuit's decision.〔''Cert. denied'', 536 U.S. 907, 122 S. Ct. 2362 (2002).〕 In 2002, the Ninth Circuit disagreed with ''Emerson'' in ''Silveira v. Lockyer''.〔312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002).〕 In 2008, the D.C. Circuit held that the Second Amendment protected an individual right, in ''Parker v. District of Columbia'',〔478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007).〕 which was reviewed by the Supreme Court in ''District of Columbia v. Heller''.〔554 U.S. 570 (2008).〕 In the ''District of Columbia v. Heller'' decision the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms". In McDonald v. Chicago the U.S. Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment against the states, ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, mooting the questions that had remained in ''Nordyke''. ==References== 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「United States v. Emerson」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.