United states v. stevens decision

The United States prosecuted Robert J. Stevens (Stevens) for violating 18 U.S.C. § 48, which states: Whoever knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal law criminalizing the creation, distribution, or possession of images of animal cruelty as substantially overbroad. The Court resisted efforts by the federal government to create a new unprotected category of speech Respondent Stevens was indicted under §48 for selling videos depicting dogfighting. He moved to dismiss, arguing that §48 is facially invalid under the First Amendment. The District Court denied his motion, and Stevens was convicted

See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus UNITED STATES v. STEVENS CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 08-769. Argued October 6, 2009—Decided April 20, 2010 Congress enacted 18 U. S. C. §48 to criminalize the commercial crea On November 8, 2010, Lauren Stevens was indicted on two counts of obstruction and four counts of making false statements to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Stevens was an attorney for a major pharmaceutical company at the time of the crime alleged Stevens, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on April 20, 2010, ruled (8-1) that a federal law banning depictions of animal cruelty violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech A U.S. District Court Judge Alan Bloch denied Stevens' motion to dismiss the indictments because the law violated the First Amendment. Stevens was then convicted on three charges of selling videos in violation of the law. He was sentenced to 37 months in prison and three years on probation

United States v. Stevens LII Supreme Court Bulletin US ..

  1. On January 3, 2020, the Defendant, Christian Stevens (Stevens), appeared before United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi and moved for permission to enter a plea of GUILTY to Count One of the Indictment. Stevens stated that he understood that the magistrate judge is not a United States District Judge, and Stevens consented to pleading.
  2. The Justice Department on Wednesday asked a federal judge to drop all charges against former Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska. A jury convicted Stevens last fall of seven counts of lying on his Senate..
  3. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Stevens pleaded guilty to the conspiracy count, and the firearm count was dismissed. Pursuant to his plea agreement, Stevens agreed that the relevant drug quantity for sentencing purposes was at least fifty (50) grams, but less than one hundred and fifty (150) grams of cocaine base or crack cocaine. Thi
  4. al ethics violations, subsequently lost his re-election campaign, and, only shortly before his tragic passing, was exonerated after a whistleblower revealed that prosecutors withheld critical evidence of the Senator's innocence in violation of his constitutional rights. April 25, 201
  5. al Justice. Taylor.
  6. gly outweighs the expressive interests, if any, at stake, that no process of case-by-case adjudication is required, be cause the balance of competing.

Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824), was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the power to regulate interstate commerce, granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, encompassed the power to regulate navigation. How did the Supreme Court limit federal overreach in Bond v United States The record on which the decision of the Court is based was agreed to by the parties, through counsel, in a telephone conference on April 10, 2020. It consists of: a report from Alisha Gallagher, Attorney for the Bureau of Prisons, dated April 13, 2020; Abid Stevens' UNITED STATES v. ABID STEVENS CRIMINAL ACTIO Robert Stevens was convicted under 18 U.S.C. Section 48 in a Pennsylvania federal district court for knowingly selling depictions of animal cruelty with the intention of placing those depictions in interstate commerce for commercial gain. His conviction stems from an investigation into the selling of videos related to illegal dog fighting

Get United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010), 130 S.Ct. 1577 (2010), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee See United States v. Johnson, 752 F.2d 206, 209-10 (6th Cir.1985). Although the witness was thus held in contempt prior to trial, the government did not thereby obtain any greater ability to coerce the witness's testimony than it had to coerce Pizzo's testimony in this case. 7. This approach is consistent with United States v. Tot v. United States, supra, 319 U.S. at 467, 63 S.Ct. 1241. Where, as in the instant case, Congress enacts a criminal statute pursuant to its commerce power, either interstate commerce or an adverse effect on interstate commerce is an element of the crime. Cf. Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369, 64 S.Ct. 1037, 88 L.E [FN45] Due to the Third Circuit and subsequent Supreme Court decisions in Stevens, crush videos reemerged in full force. [FN46] The Court struck down § 48 as overbroad, declining to recognize depictions of animal cruelty as a category of speech worthy of receiving a categorical exclusion from First Amendment protection Get United States v. Stevens, 935 F.2d 1380 (1991), United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee

Case Holding: United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. ___ (2010) was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 48, a federal statute criminalizing the commercial production, sale, or possession of depictions of cruelty to animals, was an unconstitutional abridgment of the First Amendment right to freedom of. in the supreme court of the united states. no. 08-769. united states of america, petitioner. v. robert j. stevens. on petition for a writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit. petition for a writ of certiorar In connection with the post-trial litigation in United States v.Theodore F. Stevens, the Department of Justice has conducted a review of the case, including an examination of the extent of the. Court's decision in United States v. Jones, 962 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2020), Potts' crack cocaine offenses qualify as covered offenses under the First Step Act, making him eligible for a reduction of his supervised release terms on his two drug convictions. However, the First Step Act did not change his 5-year concurren

United States v. Stevens The First Amendment Encyclopedi



US v. Lauren Stevens - United States Department of Justic

  1. In United States v.Stevens, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 48, a law prohibiting the sale and possession of depictions of animal cruelty that lack social value.As the first Supreme Court case in more than fifteen years to directly address the issue of animal cruelty, Stevens presented a unique opportunity to convince the Court of the importance of animal.
  2. The case of United States v. Stevens in 2010 is an example of the Supreme Court's power of judicial appointments. executive speech. judicial review. free speech
  3. Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska was the longest-serving United States Senator on the Republican side when he was indicted in August 2008 by the Bush Justice Department on a variety of fraud charges connected to allegations that he took money from campaign contributors in Alaska
  4. Only by including the docket entries in United States v. Stevens can this Court have ready access to all of the information necessary to render a full and fair decision in this appeal.). The D.C. Circuit affirmed this Court's decision on December 9, 2011. 663 F.3d 1270 (D.C. Cir. 2011). 17 appropriate
  5. The jury then convicted Mr. Stevens on three counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 48. Pet. App. 4a. Mr. Stevens was sentenced to 37 months of imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release. Ibid. 4. a. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit sua sponte heard the case en banc
  6. Stevens eventually entered into 10 treaties with the Natives, In the case of United States v. Taylor, decided in 1887, Washington's territorial supreme court affirmed the Natives' right to fish at an off-reservation location that had previously been an accustomed Native fishing ground, even if the land was subsequently purchased by a bona.

United States v. Stevens; United States v. Stevens (2010) The Roberts Court Argued: 10/06/2009 Decided: 04/20/2010 Vote: 8 — 1 Majority: Dissent: Constitutional Provisions: The Free Speech Clause: Am. I, Cl. 3; Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Robert Stevens. The Roberts Court (2009-2010). Seated, from left to right: Justices Anthony M. United States v. Stevens (2010) is a Supreme Court case related to issues of free speech and animal cruelty. In this lesson, we will learn about the facts of the case, the constitutional question. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 05-2497 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ROBERT J. STEVENS, Appellant On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 04-cr-00051) District Judge: Hon. Alan N. Bloch Argued October 25, 2006 Argued En Banc November 13, 200

United States v. Stevens law case Britannic

Stevens also protests the extent to which the district court, applying our opinion in United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224 (3d Cir.1985), limited the testimony of his expert witness regarding the reliability of eyewitness identification Facts of the case. Jonathan Stevens, a former attorney for the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, filed suit against his former employer, the agency, alleging that it had submitted false claims to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in order to induce the EPA to disburse more grant money than it was entitled to receive Stevens, J., Dissenting: The Legacy of Heller. Second Amendment scholars discuss the late Justice John Paul Stevens's contributions to one of the nation's thorniest debates. During his 34 years on the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens participated in thousands of decisions that addressed nearly every aspect of American law Government 2305 Reyna 9:30-11 United States v. Stevens In the U.S., when we commit a crime or an offense, we go to court to face our punishment. Depending on the size of the crime committed, we often just pay a fine , dispute a case like a traffic accident with a lawyer to defend us in court, civil disputes, or in worse case scenarios, murder or the death of a person(s) In 1970 a complaint was filed in federal court to clarify the right to fish that tribes had reserved in the Stevens Treaties. The case became United States v. Washington and has been in litigation ever since. Hundreds of sub-proceedings have been decided, dozens of appeals have been heard and the Supreme Court has considered the case twice

United States v. Stevens mediacoalitio

Page 579. 177 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 1999) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank STEVENS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 97-2035. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circui Alissa Mannarino 9/9/14 LAW 222-02 Homework 1 Brief (1) of Case: UNITED STATES V. STEVENS 1. Case name, citation, and court United States v. Stevens 559 U.S. 460, 130 S.Ct. 1577 (2010) U.S. Supreme Court 2. Key Facts A. Robert Stevens ran a business and operated a website that sold and distributed videos depicting violent images of animals. B Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho Ronald E. Bush, Chief Magistrate Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted July 13, 2017 Portland, Oregon Filed September 4, 2018 Before: Marsha S. Berzon, Paul J. Watford, and John B. Owens, Circuit Judges

United States, 217 U.S. 509 (1910), this Court observed that that case did not present the question whether the States can be required to enforce federal laws against their consent, id., at 517. The majority points to similar comments in United States v. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the indictment and the repatriation of respondent, relying on its decision in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 939 F.2d 1341 (CA9 1991), cert. pending, No. 91-670. 946 F.2d 1466 (1991) UNITED STATES v. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 91-712. Argued April 1, 1992—Decided June 15, 1992 Respondent, a citizen and resident of Mexico, was forcibly kidnaped from his home and flown by private plane to Texas, where he was arreste See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA No. 08-205. Argued March 24, 2009—Reargued September 9, 2009-- Decided January 21, 201

UNITED STATES v. STEVENS Crim. Action No. 1 ..

United States v. Dominique Stephens. Dominique Stevens Case Materials. Stipulated Facts. On June 17, 2009, at 10:32 p.m., a call was received at the 911 dispatch center of the Metropolitan Police Department in New Columbia. The female caller said, I just shot my husband, and gave the address as 1799 Lamont Street, N.W. Detective Dana. The Justice Department has released a statement on the decision to drop the Ted Stevens case:. STATEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER REGARDING UNITED STATES V. THEODORE F. STEVENS Healthcare and Life Sciences Partners Patrick O'Brien and Bill Gould will lead a webinar titled United States v. Lauren Stevens - A Case Study: The Prosecution of a Life Sciences Company Lawyer. Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Gould will give the factual background and current status of the United States v.Lauren Stevens prosecution in Greenbelt, Md., before The Honorable Roger Titus and discuss best.

I Told You So | The New YorkerConceptual Marketing Corporation - PETROFILM

Stevens Case A Blow To Justice Department : NP

McCoy v. Alamu, 950 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting . Brown v. Callahan, 623 F.3d 249, 253 (5th Cir. 2010) ). We still draw all inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Taylor v. Stevens, 946 F.3d 211, 217 (5th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). The qualified immunity defense has two prongs: whether an official' The case of United States v. Stevens in 2010 is an example of the Supreme Court's power of. judicial review. The power to establish a national bank is. an implied power of Congress. How did the Supreme Court case, Gibbons v. Ogden, affect interstate commerce

STEVENS, et al. June 11, 2007 Leave a comment COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 2006-01624 REGISTRY OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Petitioner v. counsel; nor, correspondingly, has it proven that Ms. Stevens intended it to be false. Case 8:10-cr-00694-RWT Document 183 Filed 05/08/11 Page 8 of 37. 3 Counts III, V, and VI allege that certain conclusions contained in the February, United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (quoting Glasser v. How was the case of United States v. Stevens in 2010 similar to the Marbury v. Madison case? was asked on May 31 2017. View the answer now United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1479 (Interference No. 103,662) CHRISTOPHER J. STEVENS, Appellant, v. SHIGERU TAMAI, Appellee. _____ DECIDED: May 4, 2004 _____ Before MICHEL, CLEVENGER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges . CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge . Christopher J. Stevens appeals a final decision of the United States Patent Offic

UNITED STATES TAX COURT JESUS R. OROPEZA AND FABIOLA ANAYA OROPEZA, Petitioners v. , 2020. Tim A. Tarter, Kacie N.C. Dillon, and Jonathan A. Halmi, for petitioners. Doreen M. Susi, John R. Gordon, John W. Stevens, and Michael R. Harrel, LAUBER, Judge: This case is before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for partial summary. Last week the Third Circuit decided a significant First Amendment case — United States v.Stevens, which struck down 18 U.S.C. section 48, which criminalizes interstate sale of depictions of animal cruelty: (a) Creation, Sale, or Possession.— Whoever knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign. The case United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. ____ (2010) first came about in 2004 when Robert J. Stevens of Pittsville, VA was indicted for creating and selling three videotapes showing pit bulls fighting. Stevens argued that the law against the production of animal cruelty video was too broad and it violated his First Amendment rights

Landmark supreme court cases

NACDL - Prosecution of Senator Ted Steven

CASE BRIEF: UNITED STATES V. FIELDS Introduction This brief contains all the information that you need in order to reach a decision and draft an opinion in a case. In this case file, you will first find the background facts as they pertain to the law and the details of the case. (United States v. Stevens, 2010). The First Amendment has. United States v. Copeland , No. 2:05-cr-135-DCN (D.S.C. Mar. 24, 2020) granting compassionate release to 73 y/o defendant in part due to Congress's desire for courts to release individuals the age defendant is, with the ailments that defendant has during this current pandemic) Diabetes, obese, prostate cancer X-27 United States v. George Burbeck, Noah Scorell, et al. 9 X-28 United States v. Isaac Hone for John Hone, Jr., et al. X-29 United States v. William Whitehead, Mathias Bruen et al. (case canceled--documents interfiled in case file no. X-15.) X-30 The President, Directors, and Co. of the Bank of the United States v. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also United States v. Auman, 8 F.3d 1268, 1271 (8th Cir. 1993) (Section 3582(c)(2) is a provision that permits a district court to reduce a term of imprisonment if the sentencing range upon which the term was based is subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission.).Given the record, the court concludes that it need not appoint counsel or conduct a hearing.

Patients and Supporters of Angel Raich waiting at theGrutter v


action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Stevens & Ricci, claiming that the advertisements actually did violate the TCPA, see Hymed Grp. Corp. v. Stevens & Ricci, Inc., Civil Action No. 12-CV-3093 (the Underlying Action), whic The Supreme Court decision in United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965), represented a significant step in the expansion of the concept of religion under the First Amendment.. Is belief in Supreme Being required for conscientious objector status? At issue was whether belief in a Supreme Being was required to be a conscientious objector and, by implication, protected under the First.

How was the case of the United States v Stevens in 2010

hundred defendants across the United States. More than 40 district courts have held hearings regarding suppression of evidence generated from the NIT, including several courts in this circuit. See, e.g., United States v. Dzwonczyk, No. 4:15-CR-3134, 2016 WL 7428390 (D. Neb. Dec. 23, 2016); United States v. Johnson, No Conference Call and Webcast. First Half 2021 Results Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 3:00 pm CEST / 9:00 am ED FedGovContracts.com. Barry McVay's FEDERAL CONTRACTS DISPATCH. DATE: May 24, 2000 FROM: Barry McVay, CPCM SUBJECT: Supreme Court Decision 98-1828, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v.United States ex rel. Stevens. SOURCE: U.S. Supreme Court Decision 98-1828, Decided May 22, 2000 ACTION: Decision SYNOPSIS: In a 7 to 2 decision handed down on May 22, 2000, the Supreme Court decided that a. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT . Before Owen, Chief Judge, Jones and Smith, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: This court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part in regard to the plaintiff's claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging vio-lation of the Eighth Amendment. Taylor v. Stevens, 946 F.3d 211 (5th Cir. 2019)

United States v. Stevens - Case Briefs - 200

The 1997 case to which the article referred was the Court's five-to-four decision in Printz v. United States, 1 in which the Court announced what has come to be known as the anti-commandeering. Case Summary. Eichman and others were prosecuted under the federal Flag Protection Act for setting fire to American flags. Eichman and the others stated that the Act violated the First Amendment, and courts in Washington State and in the District of Columbia agreed. The United States Government then appealed to the Supreme Court Cleaning Up The Mess After United States v. Stevens: Amended H.R. 5566. Robert Stevens owned and ran a business called Dogs of Velvet and Steel, selling graphic videos depicting pit bulls participating in dog fighting or attacking other animals. Two of these videos were Japan Pit Fights and Pick-a-Winna: A Pit Bull Documentary.


Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Steven G. Breyer. John Paul Stevens • Samuel Alito • David Souter. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency is a 2007 United States Supreme Court ruling that found that carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and can be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Opinion for Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 168 L. Ed. 2d 203, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 8269 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information

United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010), 130 S.Ct ..

Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council was a case decided on June 25, 1984, by the United States Supreme Court.The case is famous for establishing the extent to which a federal court, in reviewing a federal government agency's action, should defer to the agency's construction of a statute that the agency has been delegated to administer He rejects Stevens ' notion that that Miller (United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)) held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the legislature ' s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons (Heller, at 2814) Printz v. United States (1997) Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the majority opinion misinterpreted Congress's power under the Constitution. Congress may not usurp the powers that the Constitution reserves to the States, but when it exercises its legitimate constitutional powers, its actions are binding on the States, and State. See United States v. Seay, 718 F.2d 1279, 1284 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1226, 104 S.Ct. 2677, 81 L.Ed.2d 873 (1984). A material fact about a matter within the jurisdiction of the agency is one that has a natural tendency to influence agency action or is capable of influencing agency action. United States v. Supreme Court Case. Status: Decided. Aimee Stephens had worked for nearly six years as a funeral director at R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes when she informed the funeral home's owner that she is a transgender woman. She was fired, the EEOC sued on her behalf, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Aimee's employer engaged in.


Summary Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) was a U.S. Supreme Court Case confirming that Congress did not go beyond their scope of power to regulate commerce, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States. Although one of the main reasons behind the ratification of the 14th Amendment was to rid United States of public discrimination Printz v. United States, 117 S. Ct. 2365 (1997), which presented a constitutional challenge to provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, was the only case remaining on the Court's docket on the Term's final day. The case had been under submission for close to seven months June 27, 2008 Summary of the D.C. Gun Case: District of Columbia v. Heller, Case No. 07-290, slip op. (U.S., June 26, 2008) Short Summary In District of Columbia v.Heller, the Supreme Court considered the issue of whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates th This is a video of Mr. Skidmore's (Eisenhower High School) Mock trial proceddings of his 5th period class, 2015. Enjoy.Intro Song: Capital Cities - Kangaroo.

STEVENS v. UNITED STATES 440 F.2d 144 (1971 ..

Co. v. United States, 197 U.S. 193 (1908), cited in United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 112 S. Ct. 2188, 2205 (1992) (Stevens, J., dissenting). Justice Holmes wrote: Great cases like hard cases make bad law. not violate the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico.' This decision reaffirmed the long-standing judicial policy of. District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5-4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. It was the first Supreme Court case to explore the meaning of the Second Amendment. United States v. Oates. Citation United States v. Oates, 560 F.2d 45, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13091, 1 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 718 (2d Cir. N.Y. June 3, 1977) Brief Fact Summary. The defendant, Oates (the defendant), in a criminal case was charged with possession of heroin with the intent to distribute. The defendant argued that. Summary. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark Supreme Court ruling that expanded the 2nd Amendment and its applicability to the states and their political subdivisions.. In a five to four split decision, the Supreme Court declared that the 2nd Amendment right for individuals to keep and bear arms for self-defense is a fundamental constitutional right under the due process. Other States laws/regulations; Court Cases; August 20, 2010. 2010-R-0314. SUMMARY OF THE RECENT MCDONALD V. CHICAGO GUN CASE. By: Veronica Rose, Chief Analyst. You asked for a summary of McDonald v. Chicago (561 U.S._ (2010)), in which the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the 2nd Amendment right to carry firearms applies to states