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