Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!amdahl!gam From: gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: The 2nd amendment (one more time) Message-ID: <916@amdahl.UUCP> Date: Fri, 11-Jan-85 21:48:24 EST Article-I.D.: amdahl.916 Posted: Fri Jan 11 21:48:24 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 14-Jan-85 00:42:07 EST References: <2974@allegra.UUCP> <1912@sun.uucp> <2504@CSL-Vax.ARPA> <> <288@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> Organization: Blue Mouse Trailer Resort, Hellmouth, CA Lines: 21 > Jeff Shallit > For the last time, the 2nd amendment to the Constitution DOES NOT > GUARANTEE THE RIGHT TO OWN A HANDGUN. > > "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." > > 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. > > The current NRA leadership is not in agreement with this interpretation. I don't agree with that interpretation either. I would like to know which Supreme Court decisions you are refering to. Please don't bother to "condense" them for me; you are not exactly an impartial observer. The case numbers would be sufficient. -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam