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