Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!oswald.UUCP!jim
From: jim@oswald.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.politics
Subject: Re: The 2nd Amendment
Message-ID: <12250749637.19.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Wed, 29-Oct-86 16:37:39 EST
Article-I.D.: RED.12250749637.19.MCGREW
Posted: Wed Oct 29 16:37:39 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Oct-86 22:16:21 EST
Sender: serge@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: oswald!jim@ll-xn.ARPA
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 24
Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu


Many people claim that the second amendment provides the general
populace a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  This is
demonstrably false.

For many years, localities such as New York City have had laws which
abridge this putative right.  Many people have been convicted of
violating these laws.  During all this time, the Supreme Court has
never overturned such a conviction due to conflict with the second
amentment.  If the Court really believed that such a right existed,
the NRA would have found a suitable test case decades ago.  The
Court's silence speaks volumes.

What the anti-gun-control people really mean is that *they* (not the
Court) interpret the amendment to provide such a right.  Anyone can
interpret the constitution, but only the Court's interpretation really
counts.  By letting gun control laws stand, the Court has decided that
a general right to keep and bear arms does not exist. 
-- Jim Olsen
...!{decvax,lll-crg,mit-eddie,seismo}!ll-xn!oswald!jim --- Jim Olsen
...!{decvax,lll-crg,mit-eddie,seismo}!ll-xn!oswald!jim


-------