The controversial topic of gun control is not new to the United States. In fact, it is an issue the country has faced since the days of the Revolutionary War, Prohibition, and even the hippie era.

The following timeline highlights some important landmarks in the history of gun control that lead up to the recent Supreme Court case.

1775: As American try to gain independence, the British limit the amount of gun powder shipped to the colonies. Paul Revere is caught by British on their way to take U.S. weapons at an arsenal.

1822: Bliss v. Commonwealth solidifies peoples’ rights to bear arms to defend themselves. The right to bear arms is seen as an individual right.

1842: State v. Buzzard changes opinion and the right to bear arms is now seen as a political right, not an individual right. The case sends the country into decades of debate over whether the right to bear arms is an individual or collective right.

1856: The well known case of Dred Scott v. Sandford gives African Americans the right to bear arms.

1868: Amid worries that the Southern states were attempting to disarm former slaves, the 14th Amendment is enacted, stating that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

1934: Soon after the repeal of Prohibition and the violent gang related Saint Valentine’s Day massacre, the National Firearms Act is passed, requiring the registration of firearms.

1968: The Gun Control Act makes it illegal for anyone except licensed manufacturers, dealers, and importers to participate in interstate firearms transfers.

1974: The National Coalition to Ban Handguns is founded. It includes labor, religious, and nonprofit groups who support gun owner licensing, firearm registration, and the ban of privately-owned handguns (with a few exceptions) to fight gun-related crime.

1990: The National Coalition to Ban Handguns is renamed the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

1993: The Brady Act requires federal background checks to purchase guns in the United Sates.

1994: It becomes illegal to sell assault weapons to civilians, according to the Assault Weapons Ban.

2007: Background check requirements are added to by the NICS Improvement Amendments Act.

2008: The Supreme Court rules, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the 2nd Amendment allows individuals to cary firearms in federal enclaves. The ruling does not make it clear whether the decision also applies to states.

2010: The Supreme Court rules that the 2nd Amendment is not limited by state and local laws and that individuals have the right to bear arms.

This summary is only the beginning. The history of American government and laws is very interesting, in depth, and pertinent to today’s rulings. Both the criminal justice and legal industries are full of exciting information and opportunities.

Incoming search terms:

The facts

James Burt, 24, of Sinnamon Park, Brisbane copied New Super Mario Bros — one of Nintendo’s new Wii games — and uploaded it to the internet a week before its official Australian release on 12 November 2009.

Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cwlth), Burt should have sought Nintendo’s permission, as the copyright owner, before copying and distributing its games.

As a result of Mr Burt’s conduct, thousands of people around the world downloaded illegal copies of the game causing substantial loss to Nintendo.

What action did Nintendo take?

Once notified of the breach, Nintendo engaged a private investigator to apply sophisticated technology to determine the identity of the infringer, Burt.

On 23 November 2009, Nintendo obtained a Federal Court order to search Burt’s residence. During the search, Nintendo seized property to use as evidence to substantiate its claims against Burt. The Court ordered Burt to allow access, including passwords, to his social networking sites, email accounts and websites.

What was the outcome?

Nintendo then sued Burt in the Federal Court of Australia. Under an out-of-court settlement in January 2010, Burt is required to pay Nintendo $1.5 million in damages to compensate Nintendo for the loss of sales revenue and a further $100,000 to pay Nintendo’s legal costs.

Copyright infringement is taken seriously by the courts. This case illustrates the broad range of orders and remedies that can be obtained from the courts to successfully protect your copyright.

The lesson

This case highlights the severe penalties that are imposed on individuals or companies that infringe copyright laws. Be cautious when dealing with copyright material. Even if your breach is unintentional, action can be brought against you. Companies such as Nintendo are becoming more pro-active and innovative in pursuing offenders. In a statement, Nintendo commented that it guards its intellectual property rights to protect the interests of its consumers, its own interests and the interests of game development companies.

Another win for Nintendo

Since this decision, Nintendo has won another Australian Federal Court case. This case was against online console and accessory seller IT Solutions Pty Ltd trading as GadgetGear — involving the gadgets known as R4 cards, which pirate games for its handheld DS system.

GadgetGear and its directors have acknowledged that:

the game copying devices infringe both Nintendo’s copyright and Nintendo’s trademarks; and
they are illegal circumvention devices.

As a result of this case, GadgetGear and the directors have agreed to permanently refrain from importing, offering for sale and/or selling game copier devices.

GadgetGear and directors Patrick and James Li were ordered to pay Nintendo $620,000 in damages and hand over all their stock of copiers to Nintendo for destruction.

Incoming search terms: