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