At 07:17 PM 6/2/02, Lucky Green wrote:
In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), the Supreme Court held that:
...
"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."
.... the 2nd Amendment solely constrains Congress from infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms while leaving the Executive free to infringe upon this right, or deny its exercise entirely, at will.
The Executive is part of the "national government" that Cruikshank says is restricted by the 2nd amendment, yes?
Under Cruikshank, Congress may not pass a bill infringing on the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms, but a Presidential Executive Order that all private citizens are to turn in their guns tomorrow passes Constitutional muster.
Then Cruikshank didn't mean to include the President as part of the "national government" that it found to be restricted by the 2nd amendment?
,,,,ten years later in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886).
"The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,' is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the States.
Again, Presser says the 2nd amendment restricts the president from such an executive order, yes?