Kyllo vs. U.S.

Background- Police officers wanted to use a thermal device to scan a house that was suspected of growing weed. They wanted to use this to get evidence for a search warrant to physically search the house. After they noticed that there was unusual heat radiating throughout certain parts of his house, they were able to get a warrant for the inside. Kyllo claimed that this evidence was invalid because It violated his fourth amendment rights.

Issue- Does the fourth amendement protect someones property not only on the inside but the outside as well?

Decision- 5 to 4 decision that the police were allowed to use thermal imaging to allow a search. But the fact that they did not have a warrant to use the thermal device was unconstitutional. These devices still intrude in one's privacy because they are scanning the home itself which is their private property.

Opinion- If one has any evidence at all that a person has commit a serious felony than that should give the police the opportunity to be able to find more evidence, which includes thermal imaging or any other new technology that can be used to gather evidence. Because they are not physically in the home ultimately these people's privacy is not, on a personal level, being violated.

District of Columbia v. Heller 

Background- 

Heller applied for an hand gun permit but was denied. They stated that the second amendment gave citizens the right to own these guns given that they would be used for self defense and hunting purposes. This allowed citizens to be able to participate in militias so that the people (non gov) would be given a reasonable amount of power to eliminate a potential tyrannical government. This case also helped to decide whether the individual had the right to carry a fire arm for personal self defense instead of just militias. Determined that hand guns are considered "arms" so the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 unconstitutional. 

Issue- 

Can the second amendment be regulated to prevent individuals from owning certain "arms". If regulated does it violate the natural right to self defense. Is the people that the second amendment refers to the same as other amendments?

Decision-

5-4 in favor of Heller 
M-The right to own guns outside of a militia is legal if used for a lawful purpose , further more the right to own handguns is also protected because it is considered an "arm". 
D-Individual right only given if apart of a well regulated state militia. Not for other purposes even if they are lawful. 

Opinion-

I'm in favor of Heller because people are given the right to self defense even if they are not in a regulated state militia; therefore, if they wish to own a gun than they can legally receive one. And the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 is indeed unconstitutional because it violates the 2nd amendment right to bare arms. This act regulated the amendment and prevented people from being to to protect themselves with firearms. This is later used to help the Mcdonald v. Chicago case in figuring if the second amendment applies to the states.