<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.
Answer:
Patriots,” as they came to be known, were members of the 13 British colonies who rebelled against British control during the American Revolution, supporting instead the U.S. Continental Congress.
Answer: The primary charge against Johnson was that he had violated the Tenure of Office Act, passed by Congress in March 1867 over Johnson's veto. Specifically, he had removed from office Edwin Stanton, the secretary of war whom the act was largely designed to protect.
A court-martial is a court composed of military personnel, purposely for the trian of those accused to violating military law.
