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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Lone Weasel) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [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?

Leif speaking:  Here's what the 7th Circuit said in rejecting that
belief:

[29] Finally, we consider whether Ordinance No. 81-11 violates the
ninth amendment. Appellants argue that, although the right to use
commonly-owned arms for self-defense is not explicitly listed in the
Bill of Rights, it is a fundamental right protected by the ninth
amendment. Citing no authority which directly supports their
contention, they rely on the debates in the First Congress and the
writings of legal philosophers to establish that the right of an
individual to own and possess firearms for self-defense is an absolute
and inalienable right which cannot be impinged.
[30] Since appellants do not cite, and our research has not revealed,
any Supreme Court case holding that any specific right is protected by
the ninth amendment, appellants' argument has no legal significance.
Appellants may believe the ninth amendment should be read to recognize
an unwritten, fundamental, individual right to own or possess
firearms; the fact remains that the Supreme Court has never embraced
this theory.[fn10](Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 7th Cir. 1982)

http://www.healylaw.com/cases/quilici.htm

-Leif

> 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)