Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!decvax!UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU!mwm%opal.Berkeley.EDU From: mwm%opal.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU Newsgroups: mod.politics Subject: Tests of constitutionality Message-ID: <12253968936.33.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Mon, 10-Nov-86 23:21:47 EST Article-I.D.: RED.12253968936.33.MCGREW Posted: Mon Nov 10 23:21:47 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 11-Nov-86 07:13:43 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: mwm%opal.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 36 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. It would be interesting to see that demonstration. Not nice, and not something I look forward to, but interesting as an exercise in twisting the meaning of other peoples words. (Just so you know where I stand :-). >> 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. Yup, it says "this hasn't been tested." Until the Court rules on such a case and says that the law is or isn't unconstitutional, then that is the most you can conclude. Do you have case references to show that this form of Gun Control has been ruled constitutional? >> 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. Not quite - you need to say "THIS Supreme Court's interpretation." The Supreme Court has been known to decide that a previous Supreme Court decision was wrong. Aren't malleable rights fun?