从法律的角度来看，集体诉讼已经变得更加普遍，一些针对枪支制造商的诉讼以生产和销售危险产品[6]为理由。在美国诉爱默生(US v. Emerson)一案中，法官威廉·加伍德(William Garwood)根据《第二修正案》(Second Amendment)，维持了拥有/拥有枪支的权利，即使是对一名男子而言也是如此。这一决定推翻了德克萨斯州的一项法律，该法律规定持有枪支的人是非法的。这项法律被推翻是因为第二修正案确实规定个人有权“持有和携带武器”，而不仅仅是国家。关于个人在第二修正案下的合法权利的任何其他论点似乎都是不必要的，因为个人的权利得到了维护。这只是维护个人权利的一个例子，但在大多数情况下，功利主义占上风。这一决定在地区层面上被推翻，只有德克萨斯州参与其中，只有最高法院可以决定什么是宪法，什么不是宪法。
澳洲法律学论文代写:集体诉讼
From a legal standpoint, class-action lawsuits have become more prevalent, some lawsuits have been brought against gun manufacturers on the grounds that they produce and distribute a dangerous product [6]. During the case of US v. Emerson, a federal appeals judge, Judge William Garwood upheld under the Second Amendment the right to own/possess a firearm even for a man who was under a restraining order issued at his estranged wife’s request [2]. This decision overturned a law in Texas that made it illegal for someone with a restraining order to own/possess a gun. This law was overturned because it was decided that the Second Amendment indeed said that an individual has the right to “keep and bear arms”, not just the state. Any other argument regarding the legal rights of the individual under the Second Amendment seemed unnecessary, since the rights of the individual were upheld. This is only one example where the individual rights were upheld, but in most cases utilitarianism prevails. This decision was overturned on the district level and only involved the state of Texas, only the Supreme Court can decided what is or is not constitutional.