From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Date: 22 Aug 92 16:52:23 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: locusts.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug20.225118.24603@rsvl.unisys.com> gray@rsvl.unisys.com (Bill Gray ) writes:
>>	The second amendent says nothing directly about bearing arms 
>>outside of a "well regulate militia",

Under US law (Title X), all males between the ages of 17 and 45 are
members of the militia. This is entirely consistant with the intentions
of the framers of the Bill of Rights. Col. George Mason, one of the strongest
supporters of a bill of rights and a officer in the Virginia militia, 
defined the members of the militia as, "all of the people, excepting a 
few public officials."

Since the meaning of "militia" (both by original intent, federal law
and Supreme Court ruling) is so broad, 'bearing arms outside of a
"well regulated militia"', isn't much of an issue.

>>but some have said it is implied.
>>The Supreme Court, which is given the absolute authroity on the Constitution 
>>by the Constitution itself, has already said that the right to bear arms
>>only applies to state militias.

This is entirely untrue. There aren't many Supreme Court cases that even
_mention_ the Second Amendment, let alone directly relate to it. 
Specifically:

US v. Cruikshank (1876): Not terribly relevant, the Court ruled than neither
the First nor Second Amendments prevent the KKK from breaking up
meetings of freed slaves and disarming them. Using a now obsolete legal
view, that the federal Bill of Rights applies _only_ to the federal
government, they mentioned that neither the First or Second Amendments
restrict the state governments. Since the late 1890s, the Court has
changed it's mind and ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment extends
the Bill of Rights to the state level, on a case by case basis.

Presser v. Illinois (1886): Very similar to Cruikshank. The Court
ruled that neither the First nor Second Amendments allowed Presser
to parade 400 armed men through Chicago with a permit from the
mayor or governor. However, the Court went on to say that the 
states could not go so far as to "prohibit the people from
keeping and bearing arms." Not because of the Second Amendment, but
because "It is undoubtedly true that all citiznes capable of bearing
arms constitute the reserve military force or reserve militia of the
United States, and... the States cannot... deprive the United States
of thier rightfull resource."

US v. Miller (1934): This is the only modern ruling on a federal gun control
law. Miller was charged with violating the National Firearms Act of 1934,
by failing to register his sawed off shotgun, and pay the $200 tax on
such weapons. The Court did say that the Second Amendment was intended to
"assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such a
force [the militia]... It [the Second Amendment] must be interperted 
and applied with that end in view." The went on to say that membership in
the militia included "all males physically capable of acting in
concert for the common defense." But, to the Court's admittidly limited
knowledge, sawed off shotguns did not "have any reasonable relation to
the preservation or efficiency of a well regualted militia" and therefore
could legally be subject to federal regulation. That is, they 
ruled that private ownership of firearms is only protected by
the Second Amednment if the weapon is usefull to a militia.

There was one more recent ruling that said convicted felons loose many
of their rights, and there isn't any problem with a law against 
ex-convicts owning firearms.

Those, to my knowledge, are _all_ of the Supreme Court rulings 
dealing directly with the Second Amendment. _None_ limit the Second
Amendment to state organized militias.

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

>Probably not.  If they did, they'd have to repudiate Blackstone, who argued
>passionately that people have the right to self-defense.

There was a ruling on firearms that didn't directly involve the
Second Amendment. It didn't mention the Ninth either, but it more
or less implied a connection. Patsonne v. Pennsylvania (1914), said
the state could enforce hunting prohibitions by a law against non-citizens
owning hunting weapons. The court went on, however, to limit such bans
from including "weapons such as pistols that may be supposed to be needed
occasionally for self-defense."

                                                Frank Crary
						CU Boulder
						(even though I'm
						still using my
						Berkeley account...)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns