From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:41:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.180110.11083@ulowell.ulowell.edu> jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:

>-> 
>-> Look at it yourself, Gerard.  It says "the right of the people to keep
>-> and bear arms".  Not "the right of SOME people" or "the privilege of
>-> the people"...
>-> 
>-> >The Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that the second amendment
>-> >gives the States the right to maintain their own militia.  Period.
>-> 
>-> Care to post the relevant segments of their decisions?
>-> 
>	If you read the whole second amendment you would have found
>a preface to the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."  This 
>preface specificly mentions a "well regulated militia."  

     There is a preface.  However, it does not restrict the primary
clause.  It states that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the
security of a free state, then goes on to to say that *because* of
this, the people's right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.
 
     Even if it could be considered restrictive, and there is nothing
in the grammer to indicate that the second clause is restricted by
the first, *we are* the militia.

>I don't remember
>the exact wording but it is something close to "Being a well regulated
>militia is required to protect democracy, the right of the people to keep
>and bears arms shall not be abridged."  

     "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a
free state [the United States is not a Democracy], the people's
right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

>This mention of a "well regulated
>militia" in the same context of the "right to bear arms" has been
>interpreted to mean that people have the right to bears arms in a well
>regulate militia, e.g., a state militia.  

     And the relevant Supreme Court decision is...?

>	The second amendent says nothing directly about bearing arms 
>outside of a "well regulate militia", but some have said it is implied.

     It is the people's right to keep and bear arms, not the militia's.

>The Supreme Court, which is given the absolute authroity on the Constitution 
>by the Constitution itself, 

     Which Article was that?

>has already said that the right to bear arms
>only applies to state militias.  

     In which decision?

>Until the Supreme Court changes its
>desicion, or a constitution amendment is passed, this is how the Second
>Amendment is interpreted.

     Some appeals courts have said this.  (But you can find an appeals
court decision to support just about anything.)  The Supreme Court *has*
said (in 1939, the last time it was addressed) that a sawed-off shotgun
was not covered by the Second Amendment because it was not a militia
weapon.  The Supreme Court has never stated that the Second Amendment
ony applies to the state militias.  (Although according to U.S. legal
code, I am *in* both the Tennessee unorganized militia, so it *still*
applies to me.)

>	Question, has the Supreme Court ever debated if the right to bear
>arms outside of a militia falls under the Ninth Amendment?

     The ninth amendment is almost as useless, and ignored, as the tenth
amendment.

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc