<span>1876 Supreme Court case ruled against any individual right to bear armsSecond Amendment guaranteed only states' rights to maintain militiasState governments could regulate guns however they saw fit<span>Presser v. Illinois affirmed Cruikshank ruling, further clarified that Second Amendment rights had not been "incorporated"—that is, they were not binding on the states</span></span>
Until quite recently, the answer to that question was pretty simple—the Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment was established in just a few cases. The first of these was United States v. Cruikshank. You can read more about this case here, but the short version is that in 1876 the Court ruled that the Second Amendment served only to protect the states against the federal government. Because the states in 1787 were worried that a too-powerful federal government might trample their rights, the Court said, the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution guaranteeing their right to maintain militias. The Second Amendment did not, in this interpretation, provide any individual right to keep and bear arms; it only guaranteed a state's right to maintain a militia. Moreover, since these militias were to be "well regulated," and since the Second Amendment was aimed only at the threat posed by the federal government, state governments were—according to this ruling—free to regulate guns in any manner they saw fit.
The answer will be the first one
FIXED
1642
Sorry I thought it meant American
Brainliest is appreciated
Answer:
to create news rather than document it, to sensationalize events by distorting truth, to exploit the public's fears, to manipulate the public's perception of events; to write articles that sell newspapers to advance the newspaper publisher's political views.
Explanation:
Hope it helps
Go.ogle<3
