Law School

The right to keep and bear arms in the United States is a fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, and by the constitutions of most U.S. states. The Second Amendment declares: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. In the United States, which has an English common law tradition, the concept of a right to keep and bear arms was recognized prior to the creation of a written national constitution. When colonists in the Thirteen Colonies rebelled against British control during the American Revolution they cited the 1689 English Bill of Rights as an example. English precedent. The American understanding of the right to keep and bear arms was influenced by the 1689 English Bill of Rights, an Act of Parliament, which also dealt with personal defense by Protestant English subjects. The Bill of Rights did not create a new right to have arms but rather rescinded and deplored acts of the deposed King James II, a Roman Catholic, who had forced the disarming of Protestants, while arming and deploying armed Catholics contrary to Law (among other alleged violations of individual rights). The Bill of Rights provided that Protestants could bear arms for their defense as permitted by law. It also established that the power to regulate the right to bear arms belonged to Parliament, not the monarch. Sir William Blackstone wrote in the eighteenth century about the right to have arms being auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation", but conceded that the right was subject to their suitability and allowance by law. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence of the United States, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial. The Federal Rules of Evidence contain the rules governing impeachment in US federal courts. The direct examination or examination-in-chief is one stage in the process of adducing evidence from witnesses in a court of law. Direct examination is the questioning of a witness by the party who called him or her, in a trial. Direct examination is usually performed to elicit evidence in support of facts which will satisfy a required element of a party's claim or defense. In direct examination, one is generally prohibited from asking leading questions. This prevents a lawyer from feeding answers to a favorable witness. An exception to this rule occurs if one side has called a witness, but it is either understood or becomes clear that the witness is hostile to the questioner's side of the controversy. The lawyer may then ask the court to declare the person he or she has called to the stand a hostile witness. If the court does so, the lawyer may thereafter ask witness leading questions during direct examination. The techniques of direct examination are taught in courses on trial advocacy. Each direct examination is integrated with the overall case strategy through either a theme and theory or, with more advanced strategies, a line of effort. In law, cross-examination is the interrogation of a witness called by one's opponent. It is preceded by direct examination (in Ireland, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, South Africa, India and Pakistan known as examination-in-chief) and may be followed by a redirect (re-examination in Ireland, England, Scotland, Australia, Canada, South Africa, India, Hong Kong, and Pakistan). Redirect examination, performed by the attorney or pro se individual who performed the direct examination, clarifies the witness' testimony provided during cross-examination including any subject matter raised during cross-examination but not discussed during direct examination. Recross examination addresses the witness' testimony discussed in redirect by the opponent. Depending on the judge's discretion, opponents are allowed multiple opportunities to redirect and recross examine witnesses (may vary by jurisdiction). Redirect examination, in the United States, is the questioning of a witness who has already provided testimony under oath in response to direct examination as well as cross examination by the opponent. On redirect, the attorney offering the witness will ask additional questions that attempt to rehabilitate the witness's credibility, or otherwise mitigate deficiencies identified and explored by the opponent on cross. For example, the opponent might elicit on cross-examination an admission that the witness did not directly perceive every single part of the events at issue; the proponent will attempt on redirect to establish that the witness perceived enough of those events that the finder of fact can draw reasonable inferences as to the gaps where the witness's perception was obstructed. "Recross" is sometimes allowed, but usually the opposing attorney must ask for permission from the judge before proceeding with that additional round of questioning. In the law of evidence, a privilege is a rule of evidence that allows the holder of the privilege to refuse to disclose information or provide evidence about a certain subject or to bar such evidence from being disclosed or used in a judicial or other proceeding. There are many such privileges recognized by the judicial system, some stemming from the common law and others from statute law. Each privilege has its own rules, which often vary between jurisdictions.

A miscarriage of justice, also known as a failure of justice, occurs when a person is convicted and punished for a crime that they did not commit. It is seldom used as a legal defense in criminal and deportation proceedings. The term also applies to errors in the other direction—"errors of impunity", or to any clearly unjust outcome in any civil case. Every "miscarriage of justice" in turn is a "manifest injustice." Most criminal justice systems have some means to overturn or quash a wrongful conviction, but this is often difficult to achieve. In some instances a wrongful conviction is not overturned for several decades, or until after the innocent person has been executed, released from custody, or has died. Compounding a felony was an offence under the common law of England and was classified as a misdemeanor. It consisted of a prosecutor or victim of an offence accepting anything of value under an agreement not to prosecute, or to hamper the prosecution of, a felony. To "compound", in this context, means to come to a settlement or agreement. It is not compounding for the victim to accept an offer to return stolen property, or to make restitution, as long as there is no agreement not to prosecute. Under the common law, compounding a felony was punishable as a misdemeanor. Many states have enacted statutes that punish the offence as a felony. Compounding a misdemeanor is not a crime. However, an agreement not to prosecute a misdemeanor is unenforceable as being contrary to public policy. Compounding has been abolished in England and Wales, in Northern Ireland, in the Republic of Ireland, and in New South Wales. In each of these cases, it has been replaced by a statutory offence. 

A holographic will, or olographic testament, is a will and testament which is a holographic document, i.e., it has been entirely handwritten and signed by the testator. Traditionally, a will had to be signed by witnesses attesting to the validity of the testator's signature and intent, but in many jurisdictions, holographic wills that have not been witnessed are treated equally to witnessed wills and need only to meet minimal requirements in order to be probated: There must be evidence that the testator actually created the will, which can be proved through the use of witnesses, handwriting experts, or other methods. The testator must have had the intellectual capacity to write the will, although there is a presumption that a testator had such capacity unless there is evidence to the contrary. The testator must be expressing a wish to direct the distribution of his or her estate to beneficiaries. An oral will (or nuncupative will) is a will that has been delivered orally (that is, in speech) to witnesses, as opposed to the usual form of wills, which is written and according to a proper format. A minority of U.S. states (approximately 20 as of 2009), permit nuncupative wills under certain circumstances. Under most statutes, such wills can only be made during a person's "last sickness," must be witnessed by at least three persons, and reduced to writing by the witnesses within a specified amount of time after the testator's death. Some states also place limits on the types and value of property that can be bequeathed in this manner. A few U.S. states permit nuncupative wills made by military personnel on active duty. Under the law in England and Wales oral wills are permitted to military personnel and merchant seamen on duty (see law report below) and it is common practice in Commonwealth countries. An analogy can be drawn to the concept of last donations (donatio mortis causa) established by Roman law and still in effect in England and Wales. In the statutory law of wills and trusts, an attestation clause is a clause that is typically appended to a will, often just below the place of the testator's signature. In the United States, attestation clauses were introduced into probate law with the promulgation of the first version of the Model Probate Code in the 1940s. Statutes that authorize self-proved wills typically provide that a will that contains this language will be admitted to probate without affidavits from the attesting witnesses.

Property rights are basic human rights, grounded in current Human Rights law as found in article 17 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and theoretical constructs in economics for determining how a resource or economic good is used and owned. This idea of ownership must be constrained from the views of absolute ownership to a right to use the good within its expected scope of use. Ownership goes beyond the basic notions of property rights to this idea of viewing the ability to own as one of the most basic human rights. Resources can be owned by (and hence be the property of) individuals, associations, collectives, or governments. Property rights can be viewed as an attribute of an economic good. This attribute has four broad components and is often referred to as a bundle of rights: 1. the right to use the good. 2. the right to earn income from the good. 3. the right to transfer the good to others, alter it, abandon it, or destroy it (the right to ownership cessation). 4. the right to enforce property rights. Water right in water law refers to the right of a user to use water from a water source, for example,  a river, stream, pond or source of groundwater. In areas with plentiful water and few users, such systems are generally not complicated or contentious. In other areas, especially arid areas where irrigation is practiced, such systems are often the source of conflict, both legal and physical. Some systems treat surface water and groundwater in the same manner, while others use different principles for each.

Freedom of the press in the United States is legally protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, freedom of the press in the United States is subject to certain restrictions, such as defamation law, a lack of protection for whistleblowers, barriers to information access and constraints caused by public and government hostility to journalists. History. Thirteen Colonies. In the Thirteen Colonies before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the media was subject to a series of regulations. British authorities attempted to prohibit the publication and circulation of information of which they did not approve.  One of the earliest cases concerning freedom of the press occurred in 1734. In a libel case against The New York Weekly Journal publisher John Peter Zenger by British governor William Cosby, Zenger was acquitted, and the publication continued until 1751. At that time, there were only two newspapers in New York City and the second was not critical of Cosby's government. U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment permits information, ideas and opinions without interference, constraint, or prosecution by the government. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. Freedom of peaceful assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right or ability of people to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue, and defend their collective or shared ideas. The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, a political right and a civil liberty. The terms freedom of assembly and freedom of association may be used to distinguish between the freedom to assemble in public places and the freedom to join an association. Freedom of assembly is often used in the context of the right to protest, while freedom of association is used in the context of labor rights and in the Constitution of the United States is interpreted to mean both the freedom to assemble and the freedom to join an association. In the United States the right to petition is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". Although often overlooked in favor of other more famous freedoms, and sometimes taken for granted, many other civil liberties are enforceable against the government only by exercising this basic right. According to the Congressional Research Service, since the Constitution was written, the right of petition has expanded. It is no longer confined to demands for “a redress of grievances,” in any accurate meaning of these words, but comprehends demands for an exercise by the government of its powers in furtherance of the interest and prosperity of the petitioners and of their views on politically contentious matters. The right extends to the "approach of citizens or groups of them to administrative agencies (which are both creatures of the legislature, and arms of the executive) and to courts, the third branch of Government. Certainly, the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government. The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition."

In United States and Canadian law, competence concerns the mental capacity of an individual to participate in legal proceedings or transactions, and the mental condition a person must have to be responsible for his or her decisions or acts. Competence is an attribute that is decision specific. Depending on various factors which typically revolve around mental function integrity, an individual may or may not be competent to make a particular medical decision, a particular contractual agreement, to execute an effective deed to real property, or to execute a will having certain terms. Depending on the state, a guardian or conservator may be appointed by a court for a person who satisfies the state's tests for general incompetence, and the guardian or conservator exercises the incompetent's rights for the incompetent. Defendants who do not possess sufficient "competence" are usually excluded from criminal prosecution, while witnesses found not to possess requisite competence cannot testify. The English equivalent is fitness to plead. Character evidence is a term used in the law of evidence to describe any testimony or document submitted for the purpose of proving that a person acted in a particular way on a particular occasion based on the character or disposition of that person. In the United States, Federal Rule of Evidence 404 maps out its permissible and prohibited uses in trials. Three factors typically determine the admissibility of character evidence: 1.    the purpose the character evidence is being used for. 2.    the form in which the character evidence is offered. 3.    the type of proceeding (civil or criminal) in which the character evidence is offered. Habit evidence is a term used in the law of evidence in the United States to describe any evidence submitted for the purpose of proving that a person acted in a particular way on a particular occasion based on that person's tendency to reflexively respond to a particular situation in a particular way. Habit evidence must be distinguished from character evidence, which seeks to show that a person behaved in a particular way on a particular occasion based on that person's prior bad acts, or based on the opinion of a witness, or based on that person's reputation in the community. Such character evidence is generally inadmissible. In the law of evidence, similar fact evidence (or the similar fact principle) establishes the conditions under which factual evidence of past misconduct of the accused can be admitted at trial for the purpose of inferring that the accused committed the misconduct at issue.

Vandalism is the action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property. The term includes property damage, such as graffiti and defacement directed towards any property without permission of the owner. The term finds its roots in an Enlightenment view that the Germanic Vandals were a uniquely destructive people. Malfeasance in office is often grounds for a just cause removal of an elected official by statute or recall election. Malfeasance in office contrasts with "misfeasance in office", which is the commission of a lawful act, done in an official capacity, that improperly causes harm; and "nonfeasance in office," which is the failure to perform an official duty. An exact definition of malfeasance in office is difficult: many highly regarded secondary sources (such as books and commentaries) compete over its established elements based on reported cases. This confusion has arisen from the courts where no single consensus definition has arisen from the relatively few reported appeal-level cases involving malfeasance in office.

Joint wills and mutual wills are closely related terms used in the law of wills to describe two types of testamentary writing that may be executed by a married couple to ensure that their property is disposed of identically. Neither should be confused with mirror wills which means two separate, identical wills, which may or may not also be mutual wills. Joint wills. A joint will is a single document executed by more than one person (typically between spouses), making which has effect in relation to each signatory's property on his or her death (unless he or she revokes (cancels) the will during his or her lifetime). Although a single document, the joint will is a separate distribution of property by each executor (signatory) and will be treated as such on admission to probate. Mutual wills are any two (or more) wills which are mutually binding, such that following the first death the survivor is constrained in his or her ability to dispose of his or her property by the agreement he or she made with the deceased. Historically such wills had an important role in ensuring property passed to children of a marriage rather than a spouse of a widow or widower on a remarriage. The recognition of these forms varies widely from one jurisdiction to the next. Some permit both, some will not recognize joint wills, and many have established a presumption that one or both of these forms creates a will contract. A joint will differs substantively from a mutual will in that the former is not intended to be irrevocable or to express a mutual intention; it is merely an administrative convenience. A will may be both joint (on one document) and mutual (see below). Mutual wills. Mutual wills have four basic requirements and a strict standard for enforceability: 1. The agreement must be made in a particular form. 2. The agreement must be contractual in effect. (Contrast Goodchild v Goodchild and Lewis v Cotton). 3. The agreement must be intended to be irrevocable. 4. The surviving party must have intended the will to reflect the agreement. Mutual wills are rare, and often another form of constructive trust is imposed. It is also noted that a mutual will is a technical legal device requiring an intention to form a binding agreement and that this often differs from the "loose moral obligation" presupposed as binding by the layman. A will contract is a term used in the law of wills describing a contract to exchange a current performance for a future bequest. In such an agreement, one party (the promise) will provide some performance in exchange for a promise by the other party (the testator, because they must draft a will) to make a specific bequest to the promise party in the testator's will. Most jurisdictions recognize such contracts as valid, although a few hold them as void against public policy. Some jurisdictions will not recognize an oral contract for such a purpose, requiring instead that the contract be executed in writing and signed by both parties. Some jurisdictions require full compliance with the Statute of Wills to be effective, i.e., in writing and signed in the presence of two witnesses. A codicil is a testamentary document similar but not necessarily identical to a will. In some jurisdictions, it may serve to amend, rather than replace, a previously executed will. In others, it may serve as an alternative to a will. In still others, there is no recognized distinction between a codicil and a will.

Mineral rights are property rights to exploit an area for the minerals it harbors. Mineral rights can be separate from property ownership. Mineral rights can refer to sedentary minerals that do not move below the Earth's surface or fluid minerals such as oil or natural gas. There are three major types of mineral property; unified estate, severed or split estate, and fractional ownership of minerals. Mineral estate. Owning mineral rights (often referred to as a "mineral interest" or a "mineral estate") gives the owner the right to exploit, mine, and/or produce any or all minerals they own. Minerals can refer to oil, gas, coal, metal ores, stones, sands, or salts. An owner of mineral rights may sell, lease, or donate those minerals to any person or company as they see fit. Mineral interests can be owned by private landowners, private companies, or federal, state, or local governments. Sorting these rights are a large part of mineral exploration. A brief outline of rights and responsibilities of parties involved can be found here.