From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Perot for President
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 22:47:33 GMT

In article <hberg.89@polisci.pol.umn.edu>, hberg@polisci.pol.umn.edu (Bob Hammarberg) writes:
|> In article <1992Mar26.030528.9335@bluemoon.rn.com> grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean) writes:
|> 
|> > I don't know what "extreme meaning" you refer to, but the 2nd recognizes
|> >the right of individual Americans to own and carry arms.
|> > The Supreme Court of the U.S. supports that meaning as well.
|>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> 
|> Is that so??!! Could you please cite the case!

[Extracted from old t.p.g. articles for your benefit.]

There have been only 4 cases in the Supreme Court that have even
*mentioned* RKBA and every time they referred to the right of the
individual AND affirmed it.

	United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 1990
	United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
	United States v. Cruikshank
	United States v. Lewis

Also, "Dred Scott" discusses the rights of citizens.

For your reading pleasure:

"...'the people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select
parts of the Constitution.  The Preamble declares that the
Constitution is ordained, and established by 'the people of the the
U.S.'  The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms...."
        - Supreme Court of the U.S.,  U.S. v. Verdugo-Uriquidez (1990).

From "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms", which was a February 1982
Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the
Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-Seventh Congress:

"Prior to the Civil War, the Supreme Court of the United States
likewise indicated that the privileges of citizenship included the
individual right to own and carry firearms. In the notorious Dred
Scott case, the court held that black Americans were not citizens and
could not be made such by any state. This decision, which by striking
down the Missouri Compromise did so much to bring on the Civil War,
listed what the Supreme Court considered the rights of American
citizens by way of illustrating what rights would have to be given to
black Americans if the Court were to recognize them as full fledged
citizens:

	   It would give to persons of the negro race, who are
	recognized as citizens in any one state of the Union, the
	right to enter every other state, whenever they
	pleased. . . . and it would give them full liberty of speech
	in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its
	own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon
	political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they
	went.[Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 691, 705.]"

The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank[United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)] held that no indictment could be
properly brought since the right "of bearing arms for a lawful
purpose" is "not a right granted by the Constitution.  Neither is it
in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

Your ball,
-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
"You are getting hung up unnecessarily by the use of the words (and
their associated meanings).  What you should be doing is _ignoring_
the actual words...the words themselves are completely unimportant."
--brian@coombs.anu.edu.au