From: Terry.Preston@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Terry Preston)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: The 2nd amendment- part 2
Date: 11 Nov 92 07:04:02 GMT

<Continued from previous message>


TC>US v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990)

TC>        Case is about unreasonable search and seizure. In clarifying
TC>        what is meant by the phrase "the people" as it relates to
TC>        Fourth Amendment, the Court said that it has the same meaning
TC>        as it does in the First, Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments,
TC>        that is, the individual citizen.

The case asks whether or not the Constitution's protections governing
search and seizure apply to someone kidnapped by U.S. agents outside of
the country and brought before a U.S. court.  The defendant challenged
this action, claiming in support of his claim that the kidnapping was
illegal that the liberal use of the phrase "the People" in the U.S.
Constitution should not be construed to include only those directly
under the Constitution's jurisdiction.  The court disagreed, and ruled
against the defendant.

In summary, the court's holding in this case concerned the meaning of
what class of person can claim constitutional protection.  It did  not 
define what those protections were concerning the Second Amendment.

TC>Miller v. Texas

TC>Patsonne v. Pennsylvania

Neither of these cases have cites.  Any legal researcher with walk-
around sense knows that cases without cites mean nothing.  If you have
cites available, I am willing to review these two cases as well.

TC>Presser v. Illinois (1886)

There is no case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1886 with this
name.  Again, if you have a full case cite or a correct year, I'll be
willing to review.

TC>Perpich v. Massachusetts states that the National Guard is not
TC>part of the militia, but rather a branch of the organized Federal
TC>Army.

It doesn't say this at all.  'Perpich' states that the Constitution
grants Congress authority to determine how the National Guard can be
trained.  It does  not  say that the Guard isn't part of the 'militia'.

Speaking of the militia ...

TC>In addition, United States Code Title X specifically identifies
TC>the militia as "all males between the ages of 17 and 45"

This is Title X section 311, to be exact.  You have quoted the relevant
part of subsection (a).  Subsection (b) states:

- The classes of the militia are -

  The organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the
  Naval Militia; and

  The unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia
  who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

This section was adopted in 1916, and following code sections grant the
government the power to conscript the militia into the regular armed
forces.  Putting on my historian's hat for a minute, I'd say that the
federal government, conscious of the cold reception conscription had
received in some quarters in the past, and the large peace faction in
the present, was laying the legal foundation for mass conscription
should war break out with Germany.  By initially defining all draft-age
men as 'militia', Congress was in effect using the spirit of the Second
Amendment to constitutionally justify conscription.  Congress could then
say, "We're not  impressing  people, we're just calling out the
militia".

Also, if Perpich v. Massachusetts holds what you say it holds, then
Perpich appears to be invalidating this section.

<Continued to next message>
   
 * DeLuxe  1.21 #11899 * 

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)