Are we, as a nation, interpreting the Constitution properly? Yes? No? In part? Was the Second Amendment’s original purpose to establish a militia to maintain the public order? Was "Militia" intended to mean a regulated police force? Has the Second Amendment’s practical intent been eliminated by the existence of modern governmental resources to provide for state militias and a standing Army? In your opinion, do citizens have more to fear from governmental power, or private citizens owning guns? Thus, how does the second amendment in the 21st century promote freedom? The United States Supreme Court has already made clear through its legal opinions that gun regulation is constitutional. If that is the case, why then hasn't stricter gun regulation been established?

An artist entered into a written agreement to sell a patron a partially finished painting once it was complete. the patron later learned that the artist planned to sell the painting to a third party who offered to pay the artist more than the contract price. the patron filed suit to compel the artist to sell the painting to her in accord with the terms of their agreement, while the artist denied that the painting the artist planned to sell to the third party was the subject of the agreement with the patron. at trial, the patron did not introduce the written agreement or explain its absence. rather, the patron sought to testify that, when she signed the agreement, the artist had pointed to the painting in question and stated that it was the patron’s painting. the artist’s attorney objected to the testimony that the artist identified the painting as belonging to the patron. how should the court rule? asustain the objection, because the artist’s statement was hearsay. bsustain the objection, because the patron failed to produce the written agreement or explain its absence. coverrule the objection, because the statement is not hearsay. doverrule the objection, because the statement was relevant.

Two police officers stopped a car for a minor traffic violation. while one of the officers dealt with the driver and the traffic violation, the other officer talked with the passenger. seeking to question the passenger about gang involvement, but lacking reasonable suspicions of criminal activity, the officer ordered the passenger out of the car. as the passenger exited the car, the officer saw a bulge in the passenger's coat which the officer suspected might be a gun. upon patting down the passenger, the officer felt the handle of a revolver and removed the gun. the passenger, who was a convicted felon, was charged with the possession of a gun by a prohibited possessor. prior to trial, the defendant sought to suppress the gun as evidence, contending that its seizure was unconstitutional. should the court suppress the gun as evidence? ayes, because, since the car had been stopped for a traffic violation, the officer could not order the passenger, who had not committed the violation, to exit the car. byes, because, since the officer lacked reasonable suspicion that the passenger was engaged in criminal activity, the officer could not pat down the passenger. cno, because a valid traffic stop gives an officer the right to pat down a passenger. dno, because the gun was discovered as a consequence of a valid terry stop and frisk.

Federalism began to spread super soon after