Re: The 2ed Amendment as a Gun Nuts Wet Dream

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ulTRAX) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
 
> Which is why I believe the REAL universal right to bear arms is in the
> NINTH amendment not the second. But it's conditional on the 10th.

On which state and/or federal cases do you base this belief?

Cruikshank's the one that simply says the Second Amendment doesn't
apply to the states, its only purpose is to prevent Congress from
disarming the militia; it's the states' reserved power of internal
police under the Tenth Amendment that makes personal gun rights
granted by the states possible.

This seems to be the understanding in state cases since at least 1840
through today.  I haven't seen many state cases before 1840 but if you
have please share them.

________________


The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right 
there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful 
purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. 
Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument 
for its existence. The second amendment declares that it 
shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no 
more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This 
is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to 
restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the 
people to look for their protection against any violation by 
their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what 
is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 
'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or 
what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 
'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the 
United States.

U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)