Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!topaz!josh
From: josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: The 2nd amendment (one more time)
Message-ID: <238@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 12-Jan-85 20:38:00 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.238
Posted: Sat Jan 12 20:38:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 14-Jan-85 04:15:58 EST
References: <2974@allegra.UUCP> <1912@sun.uucp> <2504@CSL-Vax.ARPA> <> <288@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 44

> Jeff Shallit again:
> 
> For the last time,

Whew!  Thank God...

> the 2nd amendment to the Constitution DOES NOT 
> GUARANTEE THE RIGHT TO OWN A HANDGUN.

Obviously its current interpretation by the govt doesn't.  This really
hasn't got a lot to do with either (a) what the framers meant when
they wrote it, or (b) a reasonable interpretation for today, or a probable
one for tomorrow, given the SC's penchant for reversing its field.

> "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."

Ok, what do YOU think it means?  That the government has a right to
have an army?  The fifth amendment explicitly differentiates the 
armed forces and the militia. That you have a right to join the 
National Guard (ie, the right is a "collective" one?)  The same phrase, 
"the right of the people", is used in several of the other amendments, 
including the first and fourth. If the right to bear arms is 
"collective", why not petition or security from search and seizure?

> 
> On FIVE separate occasions, the US Supreme Court has ruled that
> the 2nd amendment applies ONLY to arms that bear a "reasonable
> relationship" to those that a civilian militia would use.
> 

Such as fully automatic assault rifles, mortars, hand grenades,
etc?  The armament of the militia in 1776 (all privately owned
weapons) was *better* (Kentucky rifles, etc) than that of the 
standard army equipment (muskets).  I think you'll find that
the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd amendment is *more moderate*
than a literal reading of the words.

If the militia clause means anything, it makes it clear that the
amendment is talking about *weapons of war*, not just hunting rifles.
And the pistol *is* a standard military weapon.

--JoSH