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