Uma Patla
Ms. Murphy
AP Government and Politics
September 11, 2016
Quilici v. Morton Grove
Before the late twentieth century, the second amendment, which grants Americans the right to bear arms, was never challenged. There were absolutely no areas in the country which prohibited people from having or using guns. In the 1980s, things changed in America – there was a surge in gun violence – someone attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan and the Pope was shot. So when a resident of his town tried to open a gun store amidst this, Neil Cashman, a trustee from Morton Grove, Illinois, was more than bothered. Along with fellow residents, he drafted legislation which would prohibit the use of handguns in Morton Grove. The proposal baffled Americans – how could a person challenge an amendment which had existed since America’s beginnings? The vote split evenly – two voted for it, two against it, and two undecided.
Morton Grove became a happening place almost overnight. People were angry that their right had been challenged, and worse, that it had come so close to being repealed. The undecided voters became the center of attention as people from around the country congregated in Morton Grove to try and convince them to vote against the proposal. Additionally, the National Rifle Association began voicing their concerns over the possible ban. Their efforts failed and in the summer of 1981, both undecided voters, including one who frequently used a gun himself, voted in favor of banning handguns, as well as various other weapons. Morton Grove became the first place in America to ban unsafe weapons for people without gun licenses or gun-necessary jobs. Gun owners were required to turn in their weapons to the town, or they would be fined.
As expected, Americans were outraged. Morton Grove was being criticized and belittled. One specific resident, Victor Quilici, was especially angry. He wondered how his small town could take away his rights. Quilici, a lawyer and handgun owner, decided to make a case to reverse the repeal. He began garnering resistance against the amendment. The amendment’s true purpose became a central debate. Was it truly meant to provide the right to bear arms or was it only in place because the Constitution states the idea that states can have their own defense systems. The Supreme Court refused to rule and gave lower courts permission to The district and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit backed up the Morton Grove decision.
The second amendment is somewhat nebulous – its wording could mean any number of things. It says that “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.” It is unclear whether the amendment was written to protect states’ rights to have their own militias, or to provide citizens with the right to own and freely use a handgun. People from opposing sides of the Morton-Grove ruling tried to frame the amendment’s true meaning to match their case. However, because neither argument was stronger, the court referenced another case, “U.S. v. Miller.” In this 1939 case, the court ruled that the right to bear arms is not what the second amendment guarantees to citizens. This ruling confirmed the Morton-Grove decision, and therefore Cashman’s right to challenge the right to bear arms did not necessarily ask for a violation of the second amendment.
It is also important to note one of Quilici’s central arguments. According to the English Bill of Rights, English citizens were required to bear arms to support their militia and central defense. Quilici argued that this English right was definitely discussed when the founding fathers discussed the right to bear arms. It backed up his idea that the true purpose of the second amendment was to give citizens the right to possess guns, because they were a necessity during the eighteenth century.
According to Quilici’s opposition, he was reading too much into the possible mindset of lawmakers. They also argued that dissecting the amendment would only cause more confusion.
Quilici v. Morton Grove is a significant part of American history whose ruling continues to impact decisions regarding gun violence today. After the ruling, activists began seeking similar changes in their own towns. Nearing towns used Morton Grove as an example, and prohibited gun use quickly. However, other towns challenged the ruling for two reasons: first, they doubted that a state should have the right to take away a governmental right, and second, they believed that self-defense was a natural right. Hence, towns like Oak Park were enveloped in controversy.
Since its passing, the right to possess weapons has been lost in several American towns and cities. Laws relating to the second amendment have become stricter, and some even propose that the ban become a national law. The 2016 election raised even more controversy – Donald Trump outwardly supported the right to bear arms, while candidate Bernie Sanders approached the situation carefully, and stated that he was against assault weapons. Hillary Clinton proposed filtering guns out of society, slowly.
Today, as more gun violence and shootings occur, the Quilici v. Morton Grove decision is being questioned. It is a significant part not only of American history, but also modern America.
Uma Patla
Ms. Murphy
AP Government and Politics
September 11, 2016
Missouri Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. Kansas City
In 1987, two Missouri Knights of the Ku Klux Klan requested air time on Kansas City’s public television network to air their show, “Race and Reason,” which, at the time, was broadcast in nearly fifty cities. The show was known to discuss extremely racist and discriminatory ideas against almost everyone except white people. Kansas City refused to broadcast “Race and Reason” because it thought that the show might hinder the steps which had been taken to reduce racism in the city. The city also believed that its citizens would disapprove. Those residents were the very people who paid for the public television network, and because the town had a large population of black people, Kansas City felt it would be unwise to run the show. The city did not want to promote hatred in an increasingly accepting society, or lose business from residents of different races and religions.
Allan Moran and Denis Mahon, the klansmen who had requested the air time on Kansas City’s public channel, were angry and felt violated. After all, it was their first amendment right to broadcast what they wanted to say, and that Kansas City could not use that as a basis to deny them air time. They did not want their beliefs to be ignored in the public eye, and felt that the show would allow residents to understand their perspectives. If viewers did not like what they were saying, they could simply turn their televisions off.
Kansas City denied Moran and Mahon, first claiming that shows aired on the channel needed to be produced locally. So, the klansmen began to produce the entire show within Kansas City, determined to get air time. In their minds, the city could no longer deny them a voice on the public channel, especially since they were following all the rules.
A local Reverend, Emanuel Heaver, was distraught when he heard the news about the klansmen’s efforts. He had grown up near the city, and had experienced racism firsthand. Heaver was also aware that racism was still a pressing issue, and that “Race and Relations” would only worsen the situation. Heaver had dedicated his life to easing race relations and had worked for the ACLU, and to see his efforts inhibited by supremacists was simply disappointing.
Cleaver decided to take action. He did not want to see black people or other races discriminated against in their own city, on a channel they were paying for.
Cleaver countered the idea that the klansmen’s first amendment rights were being stolen, by claiming that they were simply a terrorist organization hoping to preach their close-minded views. The show’s true purpose was only to make residents fearful of their society.
At the time, the laws regarding free speech were as follows: if the speech is a “clear and present danger,” then only it can be suppressed. However, if the danger was not immediate, the Supreme Court ruled that it did not have the ability to suppress it. In 1969, it was ruled that if the speech provokes violence or indicates that the law be broken, it could be subdued. In the 1965 Tinker V. Des Moines case, which involved anti-Vietnam War clothing, it was also ruled that the articles of clothing were purely representations of free speech and did not provoke any violence.
In this case, the argument that the show provoked violence did not seem like it was strong enough to prevent the show from being aired. Cleaver knew he had to approach the situation from a different angle, so he decided to go after the channel itself. They did not want anyone presenting a certain message or broadcasting their views on the public channel.
Moran and Mahon were insulted and filed against Kansas City. The City tried to dismiss the lawsuit, but the effort failed. So, they argued that the klansmen had other options to preach their views – they could make phone calls, publish advertisements and articles, and create their own radio show. Still, the Court found Kansas City guilty of trying to suppress the Ku Klux Klan’s voice, and its freedom of speech. The City did not want to lose in the Supreme Court, so along with Cleaver, they attempted to settle. Still, Moran and Mahon were not willing to give up their fight. So, the City was forced to have a vote to see whether the channel would be reinstated. It was, and the Klan got a chance to broadcast its program, “Klansas City Cable.” However, after the first show, the reaction was more than outrage, so the show was immediately canelled.
Missouri Knights of the Ku Klux Klan vs. Kansas City is one of the most notable Freedom of Speech Cases. It asked whether danger should be the only reason for suppressing speech. The case backed up the original reasoning that the only reason that speech should be subdued, is if it presents an immediate danger. Cleaver was unable to win, because technically, while the Klan’s words and show might have inspired hate, they did not directly provoke or ask for violence.
The case also signified something important: free speech is rarely ever denied. All people have the freedom and power to say what they want, as long as it is non-threatening, and this is the reason that protests which inspire hate are still occurring in America today. A person or a court has no power over non-threatening speech, regardless of whether it spreads hate or inspires fear. If a court tries to prevent this, they are automatically barring people from using their first amendment right. However, without freedom of speech, America would not be the country it is, and America would not have progressed so much today, so there is something to be proud of regarding the ruling.
Uma Patla
Ms. Murphy
AP Government and Politics
September 11, 2016
Baltimore City Department of Social Services v. Bouknight
When three-month-old Maurice M. was brought to Francis Scott Key hospital, he had a fractured thighbone. His mother, Jackie Bouknight, claimed that she had fallen on her son after she was pushed, but hospital staff was suspicious of these claims. They had previously seen her violently shaking her son, and proceeding to throw him in the crib – they suspected abuse. The Boston City Department of Social Services took custody of Maurice and while he was with them, he was eventually declared a “Child in Need of Assistance (CINA).” Jackie had been seeing a psychologist who said that she was not capable of taking care of Maurice. After all, Jackie too, had grown up in the foster care system and was diagnosed as mentally retarded. Jackie wanted to regain custody of Maurice, so she cooperated with CINA and the court’s rules. She attended counseling sessions as well as classes to teach her how to become a better and more involved parent. She was the perfect student, and the courts noticed her allegiance to the rules. They felt that she clearly was fighting to get Maurice back. So, in 1987, she got what she “wanted.” Maurice was returned to his mother’s custody. Little did anyone know that Jackie’s therapist had recommended that Maurice not be returned to her, and instead remain in the court’s custody. Jackie was unfit to be a parent, and her IQ was that of an adolescent. She did not have the necessary skills to raise Maurice, and something was bound to go wrong.
Then, Maurice disappeared.
At first, no one knew. Social Services had not seen the child in months, always because Jackie was busy, or Maurice was staying with Jackie’s sister. In fact, she was not available for seven months straight, before people started to become suspicious again. Social Services realized that something was wrong, and went to court. The court ordered Jackie to bring her baby to court, and when she failed to do so, she claimed that he was again staying with her sister, Barbara, in Texas. When the police went to retrieve Maurice from Barbara, she was confused – she had never seen Maurice. Jackie was arrested, because she refused to present to the court what it had asked for. The court even went so far as to offer Jackie a pardon, and said that if she gave information about her son’s location to legal officers, her punishment would be lifted.
When Jackie’s trials began, her lawyer, Robin Parson, appealed to people’s sympathies. According to Parson, the only reason Jackie had not presented her son because she was afraid that he would be taken away from her yet again. Parson also claimed that her client was being denied of her fifth amendment right. They did not want her to self-incriminate by saying something that the court wanted to hear. Still, the judge was scared for the little boy, and upheld the order.
The Fifth Amendment has raised concern amongst Americans everywhere. Most people see it as an excuse for criminals, a way to escape their crimes. After all, a person who is innocent should have no trouble telling their story because it is undoubtedly true. A criminal, however, will have trouble. The Fifth Amendment is a saving grace for those who deserve to be convicted. Furthermore, the amendment states that someone is innocent until they are proven guilty – evidence is necessary to convict someone, which makes it difficult to land people in jail or provide them with a sentence or punishment. There are myriad ways to escape punishment when it comes to the Fifth Amendment, which concerns Americans.
The question the case asked, was whether or not Jackie’s Fifth Amendment right was being stolen from her. Was she allowed to or wrong for not presenting her son to the court? Is Jackie’s self-incrimination right even relevant if the public is more concerned with Maurice’s well being and health?
The Fifth Amendment protects all people from giving a testimony which will self-incriminate. If physical evidence is produced, this is also considered a testimony. Of course, if the existence of such evidence is proven, then it must be handed over, but if not, it is legal to not present it. The Fifth Amendment also says that a person cannot be subjected to self-incrimination during an interrogation. This decision was backed up in Miranda v. Arizona, a case which took place during the 1960s. Turning over Maurice was not protected by the Fifth Amendment, because the court knew he existed. Jackie had to listen to the court, and when she failed to do so, she was breaking the law. The state also pointed out that Jackie did not show true concern for Maurice when, during the trial, she was more focused on not incriminating herself. Parson and Jackie’s other lawyers said that public interest was playing too much of a role in the trial, and that it should not mean that Jackie loses her Fifth Amendment Right. They also tried to persuade the jury that the court was more concerned with incriminating Jackie then actually helping Maurice. Jackie won the trial and was released from prison.
The decision was appealed and brought to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Maryland Court’s decision. According to them, Jackie was breaking her promise to be under supervision of the state and produce Maurice when necessary. Jackie could not simply avoid turning in her son by pleading the fifth.