Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!gargoyle!shallit
From: shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: The 2nd amendment (one more time)
Message-ID: <302@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 10:45:23 EST
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.302
Posted: Mon Jan 14 10:45:23 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Jan-85 01:26:18 EST
References: <2974@allegra.UUCP> <1912@sun.uucp> <2504@CSL-Vax.ARPA> <> <288@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <>
Reply-To: shallit@gargoyle.UUCP (Jeff )
Organization: U. Chicago - Computer Science
Lines: 84
Summary: 

>> = Jeff Shallit
> = J. Storrs Hall

>> ...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.

It amazes me what lengths the gun nuts will go to.  So now we are supposed
to ignore 150 years of precedent and try to figure out what the
"framers" meant when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Let me quote from an "amicus curiae" brief, prepared by experts on the
Constitution, and constitutional history:

"The second amendment was intended to regulate the relationship between
the national government and the states, rather than between the national
government and individual citizens.  Its "obvious prupose" was 
"to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of"
state militias [United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939)], as
the events leading up to the adoption of the amendment amply attest.

"The delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia vigorously
debated the proper extent of federal control over state militias
[see A. Prescott, Drafting the Federal Constitution:  A Rearrangement of
Madison's Notes 515-25 (1941); Weatherup, Standing Armies and
Armed Citizens:  An Historical Analysis of the Second Amendment,
2 Hastings Const. L. Q. 961, 980-984 (1975); W. Riker, Soldiers of the
States:  The Role of the National Guard in American Democracy 14-16 (1957).]
They viewed permitting some degree of federal control as the principal
practical alternative to maintaining a substantial standing national
army, which at the time was anathema to many Americans.  They resolved the
issue at the convention by dividing authority over the militia between
federal and state governments.  A number of Anti-Federalist delegates
opposed this compromise, however, and it became a focal point for
Anti-Federalist attacks during the ratification process.  A major theme
of these attacks was that the federal government might, by abuse or
non-use of its power over state militias, disarm and destroy them. One
result was that a number of states formally proposed that the integrity
of those militias be constitutionally protected by recognizing a right to
keep and bear arms.  The second amendment responded to those fears and
proposals by safeguarding state militias against disarmament by the
federal government.  Its historical purpose, expressly reflected in its
initial clause, was not to guarantee individual citizens against
disarmament by the states, but to protect state militias.

"Keeping private weapons in support of state militias is not today a funda-
mental aspect of an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty--if indeed
it ever was. [The founding fathers were by no means unanimously agreed
that independent state militias would be effective defense forces].
The states have substantially ceded responsibility for their militias
to the federal government.  For many years Congress has supplied states
with money for militia firearms and has provided for federal control over
their care and disposition.  Private citizens are not expected, or
in most cases, even permitted--to use their own firearms in milita
service.  Today, our society neither recoils from maintaining
standing armies nor relies on state militias for its defense."


    I might add, there is ample precedent in English common law for
laws regulating the firearms of private citizens.

>I think you'll find that
>the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd amendment is *more moderate*
>than a literal reading of the words.

     This idea is ludicrous, if one reads carefully the analysis above.

     It amazes me that most posters seem to believe they are more 
qualified to interpret the constitution than experts in constitutional
law.  You don't think you are better qualified to do detailed surgery
than a surgeon, do you?  Yet in both cases, the ability to analyze
the fine points depends on years of study and research.

     If you really want to become an expert on constitutional law, I suggest
attending a course on the subject at your local college or university.

Jeff Shallit
University of Chicago