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: The 2nd amendment (one more time)
Message-ID: <288@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 9-Jan-85 17:15:16 EST
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.288
Posted: Wed Jan  9 17:15:16 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Jan-85 22:50:02 EST
References: <2974@allegra.UUCP> <1912@sun.uucp> <2504@CSL-Vax.ARPA> <>
Reply-To: shallit@gargoyle.UUCP (Jeff )
Organization: U. Chicago - Computer Science
Lines: 21
Summary: 

In article <> sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) writes:
>The NRA does far more to support the continued existance of wildlife than it
>does anything else.  It also supports the second ammendment to the US
>Constitution, which many people seem to forget exists.

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.

Jeff Shallit
University of Chicago