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!crsp!gargoyle!shallit From: shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: The 2nd amendment (one more time) Message-ID: <300@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> Date: Sun, 13-Jan-85 12:47:43 EST Article-I.D.: gargoyle.300 Posted: Sun Jan 13 12:47:43 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 14-Jan-85 03:44:26 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: 37 Summary: Gordon Moffett has requested the case numbers of Supreme Court decisions relating to the 2nd Amendment. At the risk of boring everyone, here they are: United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. at 178. The court established the principle that the second amendment cannot be invoked to defend possession of a firearm without a showing that the "preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" is somehow at risk. The circuit courts have repeatedly endorsed an applied this principle in rejecting second amendment defenses in federal firearms prosecutions. For example, see United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 387 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U. S. 926 (1978) United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d at 105-08; United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir. 1974) (per curiam); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34, 36-37 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 1010 (1972), etc. The right to arms has always been treated as "subject to... well-recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case". For example, see Robertson v. Baldwin 165 U. S. 275, 281-82 (1897). See also United States v. Freed, 401 U. S. 601, 609 (1971) (possession of inherently dangerous weapons may be criminalized without requiring scienter); Konigsberg v. State Bar, 366 U.S. 36, 50 n.10 (1961); Adams V. Williams, 407 U. S. 143, 150-51 (1972) ("There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the...possession of pistols may not be enacted.") Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 568 (1969), the Court expressly rejected the notion that there is a constitutional right to possess firearms in the home. There are other decisions, but I do not have the case numbers readily available. If Moffett wishes to follow up these in more detail (and I note that he questions my ability to summarize cases) I will try to find the case numbers. Jeff Shallit University of Chicago