District Of Columbia V. Heller

This case is commonly referred to as District of Columbia v. Heller. It involves a legal dispute between the District of Columbia and an individual named Heller. The case is significant because it resulted in a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the interpretation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms for self-defense within the home.

The correct answer is Dick Heller. The question is asking for the person who filed the suit, and out of the given options, Dick Heller is the only name mentioned that could potentially be associated with filing a lawsuit.

The correct answer is "Rights that are implied to be taken away- the right for self defense." This answer suggests that there is a connection between the topic of the question (12 AM connection) and the idea of rights being taken away, specifically the right for self-defense. The other options provided do not directly relate to the concept of rights being taken away.

The 2nd Amendment means that because a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and this right shall not be violated. This amendment guarantees the individual right to own firearms for self-defense and protection against tyranny. It also recognizes the importance of a well-regulated militia in maintaining the security of the nation.

The correct answer is Roberts Court because the question is asking about the court that is currently presided over by Chief Justice John Roberts. The term "Roberts Court" refers to the Supreme Court during his tenure as Chief Justice.

The District of Columbia banned handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns. This means that individuals are not allowed to possess handguns unless they are registered, and the act of carrying an unregistered firearm is considered a crime.

Dick Heller filed a suit because he wanted to stop the bar on handguns. This suggests that he believed there was a restriction or prohibition on owning or possessing handguns, and he wanted to challenge this limitation through legal action.