2 Challenge Gun Cases, Citing Bush Policy
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/31/politics/31GUNS.html WASHINGTON, May 30 Two men charged with carrying pistols without a license in the District of Columbia have invoked the Bush administration's position on guns to seek the dismissal of their cases. Reversing decades of Justice Department policy, the Bush administration told the Supreme Court this month that it believes the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms. Lawyers for the two men, Michael Freeman and Manuel Brown, say the position is inconsistent with a ruling in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Today, the Justice Department urged the continued prosecution of the men. The controlling precedent upholds the city's firearm statutes, "even though it contains reasoning that is inconsistent with the position of the United States," the department said in court papers [What bullshit! Do not pay any attention to the man behind the curtain.] Hush provide the worlds most secure, easy to use online applications - which solution is right for you? HushMail Secure Email http://www.hushmail.com/ HushDrive Secure Online Storage http://www.hushmail.com/hushdrive/ Hush Business - security for your Business http://www.hush.com/ Hush Enterprise - Secure Solutions for your Enterprise http://www.hush.com/ Looking for a good deal on a domain name? http://www.hush.com/partners/offers.cgi?id=domainpeople
At 07:36 PM 5/31/02, you wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/31/politics/31GUNS.html
WASHINGTON, May 30 Two men charged with carrying pistols without a license in the District of Columbia have invoked the Bush administration's position on guns to seek the dismissal of their cases.
Reversing decades of Justice Department policy, the Bush administration told the Supreme Court this month that it believes the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms.
Lawyers for the two men, Michael Freeman and Manuel Brown, say the position is inconsistent with a ruling in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Today, the Justice Department urged the continued prosecution of the men. The controlling precedent upholds the city's firearm statutes, "even though it contains reasoning that is inconsistent with the position of the United States," the department said in court papers
Looks like it is the position of the Department of Justice of the United States of America that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution conveys rights, as against potential Government powers to the contrary, for an Individual not in the military to keep and bear arms, albeit subject to reasonable regulation thereof. The Justice Department's urging of continued prosecution of the men looks like DOJ views a blanket proscription of an individual's possessing or bearing a firearm to be a reasonable regulation of firearms. Assuming that the current position of the DOJ is that it believes the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms, then if a municipality can prevail in requiring that only police officers may posses guns, and pass Constitutional muster, can that municipality prevail in requiring that only police officers may enjoy free speech? Or petition the Government for redress of grievances? Or refuse to testify against themselves? Why not? Cases in which the United States Governmnent has found an individual's rights found in the United States Constitution essentially voidable by a city council are rare, I hope? Unusual? So pre-9/11?
At 07:36 PM 6/1/2002 -0400, Ed Stone wrote:
At 07:36 PM 5/31/02, you wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/31/politics/31GUNS.html
WASHINGTON, May 30 Two men charged with carrying pistols without a license in the District of Columbia have invoked the Bush administration's position on guns to seek the dismissal of their cases.
Reversing decades of Justice Department policy, the Bush administration told the Supreme Court this month that it believes the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms.
Lawyers for the two men, Michael Freeman and Manuel Brown, say the position is inconsistent with a ruling in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Today, the Justice Department urged the continued prosecution of the men. The controlling precedent upholds the city's firearm statutes, "even though it contains reasoning that is inconsistent with the position of the United States," the department said in court papers
Looks like it is the position of the Department of Justice of the United States of America that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution conveys rights, as against potential Government powers to the contrary, for an Individual not in the military to keep and bear arms, albeit subject to reasonable regulation thereof.
The Justice Department's urging of continued prosecution of the men looks like DOJ views a blanket proscription of an individual's possessing or bearing a firearm to be a reasonable regulation of firearms.
Assuming that the current position of the DOJ is that it believes the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms, then if a municipality can prevail in requiring that only police officers may posses guns, and pass Constitutional muster, can that municipality prevail in requiring that only police officers may enjoy free speech? Or petition the Government for redress of grievances? Or refuse to testify against themselves? Why not?
Cases in which the United States Governmnent has found an individual's rights found in the United States Constitution essentially voidable by a city council are rare, I hope? Unusual? So pre-9/11
I think whether the 2nd is enforceable against states and municipalities will depend upon the SC deciding to apply the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court has long held that the 14th Amendment does not make all of the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. Only those rights the Court finds to be "fundamental" apply. To this day, several portions of the Bill of Rights, including the right to indictment by grand jury, to a jury trial in any common-law suit over $20, and to the rules of the common law in judicial review of jury fact-finding, have not been held to be fundamental and to this day are not applicable to the states. Is the right to keep and bear arms a fundamental right? Obviously the NRA would argue that it is. But the Supreme Court would be well within precedent if it were to hold that given modern conditions, a right to keep and bear arms, like a right to a jury trial for a 20-dollar dispute, can no longer be said to be so implicit in the concept of ordered liberty as to be fundamental. If it so held, the 2nd Amendment would remain applicable to the Federal Government, but would not apply to the States, which would be free to use their militia regulatory powers to regulate guns as they see fit. steve
On Sun, 2 Jun 2002, Steve Schear wrote:
longer be said to be so implicit in the concept of ordered liberty as to be fundamental. If it so held, the 2nd Amendment would remain applicable to the Federal Government, but would not apply to the States, which would be free to use their militia regulatory powers to regulate guns as they see fit.
States are not allowed to have militias in the US Consitution. They only get to appoint the officers. Congress manages 'The Militia' (which stands equal to the Army and Navy). It's interesting that the Constitution directs the States to raise armed forces independent of federal control in time of invasion. Why is that? How are the States to arm themselves if the 2nd doesn't apply to the individual? A look at the Constitution provides the following: The Constitution & Gun Rights: It's bigger than the 2nd alone This document is an ongoing project where I take comments and observations from others and post their questions and my replies. Some of this material is old and some is new. It is intended to demonstrate that when the Constitution as a whole is applied to sensitive issues it in fact provides clear direction on the limits and character of the relation between the the three arms of the government of the United States; federal, state, and individual. I assume that anyone commenting on this document is giving their explicit permission to include them with my replies unless otherwise noted. I would prefer that all discussion take place on the Cypherpunks public mailing list. I will submit all my responces to submissions to that list. If you don't wish to discuss this issue in a public forum please do not respond to me. I have no interest in private discussion on this topic. This country is going through a crisis of civil liberties and a fundamental loss of faith in the tenets of democracy. It is becoming more fascist (ie public management of private property) on a daily basis. In the near future it could become completely socialist (ie public management of public property and elimination of private property) in the name of the greater good. The belief that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the individual is in direct conflict with both the spirit and words of the Constitution. Legislative, judicial, and executive branch decisions and actions speak to this on a daily basis. One of the most controversial topics is the private ownership of weapons and the duty of the government to regulate the same. The current discussion on both sides is limited solely to the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately this is a stillborn position because it misses fundamental issues and questions. To address those I have listed each of the relevant sections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Perusal of these make it clear that the right of the individual to own and bear arms with no interference or regulation is a fundamental right of every American. This right is justified by a long history of abuse by political systems of the individual as well as a continous sequence of physical assaults on the citizenry. It is worth making special note that the Presidential claim to executive privilige regarding the use of military forces without Congressional permission is unconstitutional (see Article II). The Constitution clearly states the President is the commander in chief of the armed forces only after they have been called into action. And only Congress may call them into action unless it can not be convened. The President of the United States is not in the chain of command of the military forces without specific authorization from Congress. Until such time as that is given only Congress has the authority to direct and organize military activities. This means that the President may direct military forces only until Congress convenes. At that point Congress must decide whether to agree to commit the forces. Amendment 2, 4, & 9 provide in and of themselves sufficient grounds to find any federal involvement in the purchase, possession, or operation of a weapon to be unconstitutional. One of the most specious argumenst in this discussion is that 'the people' in the 2nd Amendment is not to be construed as meaning the individual. However, it is clear from the Constitution itself and other amendments, such as the 4th, that this simply is not so. The term 'the people' means that the decision regarding such issues is to be made at the level of the individual. In other words whether a particular individual agrees to participate is completely voluntary. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [ Note that the intent of the Constitution, and by extension those who represent us, is to provide freedom of choice (i.e. liberty) for each individual (i.e. 'ourselves and our posterity'). This means that any claim that 'the people' does not refer to the individual and their right to make individual choices is specious and misdirected. See the DoI, in particular the first two paragraphs for an expansion of the 'American' view of 'The People'. No, it's not law; It's better, it's first principle. It's the 'Authority' that 'The Law' rests own. The very bedrock of American society; We The People. ] Article I Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; [ Note it says 'the militia', not plural and definitely not state oriented since states are prohibited from raising or supporting troops. Note that it specificaly directs Congress and the President to use the Militia for internal issues only. The Army is for external issues only. No If, No And, No But. No 'National Interest', No Exceptions. ] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; [ This says Congress organizes, armes, and disciplines the militia - again nothing to do with the states and no implication of plurality. The only job the states have is appointing officers. One can argue over the wording of the training since it is ambigous. I interpet "..., reserving to the states repesctively, the appointment of the officers, .." as being a single clause and not carrying over to "... authority of training ...". ] No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. [ This last paragraph is of special importance. It directs the states to provide for their self defence during times of truly imminent danger. There is also the implication of immediate responce. Yet the state can not keep troops or even collect taxes to this end. This also excludes the Militia since it is under federal control and can't be used by the states without federal consent. In other words they are not to base their responce solely on state or federal employees. The implication is that each state is directed to provide for individual firearms ownership, on a voluntary basis. It's also worth noting that if the US is actualy invaded and the federal forces are activated the states are still directed to raise forces independently of the federal forces, and these forces would be under state control and operated in parallel with federal forces. In addition this delegates the states to independant resistance even if the federal authorities surrender. It is a fundamental recognition of the states independence. [1] ] Article II Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. [ This last paragraph describes how the President takes control of the military. It is only after Congress agrees to release the authority. Normal day to day training and patrol duties are responsible to Congress only. ] Article IV Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. [ Note this says that federal forces can not be employeed within a state without the explicit permission of the state government during periods of domestic violence. In other words "rioting in the streets" is not a sufficient condition for forced federal involvement through martial law. The state legislature is the prefered authority unless it can't be convened in time. In that case the state governor can make the decision but as soon as the state legislature is convened he's out of the picture. This means that states always have the option of refusing federal assisstance. This means the various forced tax and funds refusal threats of the federal government are unconstitutional. This means states have the option of opting out of any federal gun control regulations. As an extension, this guarantees States the right to leave the Union. ] THE BILL OF RIGHTS The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution; [ Hmmmm, now what do you think they mean by that?...Government is 'Good'? I think not. ] Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely: Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. [ This one really speaks for itself once you've understood the rest. They are actualy speaking of *two* seperate entities - the single federal Militia *and* the individual citizen. They are *not* one and the same. ] Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [ Our current society has a problem with what is understood to be 'reasonable'. This is a strong indication that we need to create a new amendment to better describe the interface, expectations, and limits of actions regarding state representatives and the individual. The only other option is to eliminate laws respecting consensual crimes such as individual drug use, abortion, etc. Arguments based on 'community standard' are inherently broken. It implies the community has some homogenious standard, there is certainly no indication of authority to sample the populate with respect to this question. The religious and free speech and press clauses prohibit it. It further prohibits laws and acts respecting law enforcement based on statistical averages, profiles, mass searches, bumper stickers, public statements not inciting something worse than domestic violence, etc. Note that this *does* give Congress the option of training the militia for operations involving nuclear, biological, or chemical attack for domestic use. (I believe that any such use must not allow weapons for other than personal defence to these federal forces. No tanks, bombs, missiles, etc.) You can't use an individuals beliefs as a basis for law. In that case, with no sample, the only question is would any citizen object to the behaviour? It is obvious the question must be answered in the negative since you have such an example at hand from the community. This effectively eliminates consensual crimes. If an activity does not cause physical harm to a person, their property, or a voluntary public trust it can't be made against the law at the federal level. (I don't believe a coersive public trust can exist under our Constitution. You can't punish a state or throw a citizen in jail because they object to participate in federal programs. Any federal programs.) ] Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. [ This one is really short and sweet. If anybody has a right then everybody has the right. There are no womens rights, gay rights, or minority rights; only human rights. This amendment prevents the government from even addressing what a persons rights are by the simple expedient that it prevents the federal or state government from even enumerating what they aren't. In other words unless the authority over some activity is proscribed in the Constitution the question of jurisdiction and decision are the individual states. It also means that the Supreme Court is prevented from using rulings that are of the enumerable type. In other words, simply because there isn't a directive in the Constitution is not sufficient reason to deny the individual the right of expression, or choice of execution. So arguments such as 'assissted suicide" isn't a right because there is no indication in the Constitution are specious and deny recognized fundamental individual rights in the 1st Amendment. So, in the case of gun control if there is a question at the federal level of jurisdiction (ie "What is meant by 'the people'?) the decision goes to the states and their individual constitutions. If it's not covererd in their individual constitutions then individuals in those states may make the decision on an individual basis. The Constitution is designed to fail-safe under questions of federal authority to the states or the individual. If Congress can't provide a delegate entry in the Constitution per the 10 th. it must suggest a constitutional amendment to the states. The current question of gun control has only two outcomes. Either individuals have their right to own guns recognized or the Congress and the state legislatures are required to mold an amendment to clarify the 2nd Amendment. The states can always stop federal aquisition of new authority at this point by simply refusing to put the amendment up for vote. At this point the states have a tacit admission of their supreme authority in such questions. ] Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. [ This amendment severely limits what the federal level of authority covers. It requires the Congress to provide a delegate, one or more sentences, in the Constition for all laws (and I believe for all suggested bills as well). it further specifies that in questions of dispute the decision goes to the individual states and their republican governments (ie state constitution). If the indvidual states don't regulate the activity it is up to the individual to participate voluntarily. The United States of America is a balkanized collection if independant states who voluntarily give up limited authority to the federal level, they must explicitly agree to this to become a state. ] The above document was submitted to the Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer, it has been expanded since that time. As a result I received various replies. My comments on the replies are included below along with quotes from the replies to clarify context.
Steve Schear wrote:
I think whether the 2nd is enforceable against states and municipalities will depend upon the SC deciding to apply the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court has long held that the 14th Amendment does not make all of the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. Only those rights the Court finds to be "fundamental" apply. To this day, several portions of the Bill of Rights, including the right to indictment by grand jury, to a jury trial in any common-law suit over $20, and to the rules of the common law in judicial review of jury fact-finding, have not been held to be fundamental and to this day are not applicable to the states.
Steve is correct that the question if the 2nd Amendment imposes limits on the ability of the States to regulate arms closely relates to whether the Supreme Court holds that the 14th Amendment extends 2nd Amendment's reach to the States. However, the answer to this question is not one that will need to be decided in the future. It has been decided over 125 years ago in one of the first test cases of the then new 14th Amendment In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), the Supreme Court held that: "The government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States." "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." As you can see by reading the entire case, the Court held not only that the 14th Amendment does not extend the 2nd Amendment to the States, but also held that the States are free to regulate firearms at their leisure, in effect, the Court held that 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. In their ruling, the Supreme Court of course utterly ignored the legislative history of the 14th Amendment that shows that the 14th Amendment was put in place precisely to ensure, amongst other civil rights, that the newly freed blacks would be able to arm themselves as a protection from their militarily beaten, but no less racist, white neighbors. 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. The Supreme Court slightly soften their contention that the 2nd Amendment was not worth the parchment it is written on (at least when it comes to, horrors, blacks with guns) 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. But in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government as well as in view of its general powers, the States cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security." Unfortunately, while at first glance being rather favorable to the right to keep and bear arms, Court in Presser did not overturn the Court's earlier determination in Cruikshank that the 14th Amendment does not extend the 2nd Amendment to the States. While the Court has in the well over 100 years that have since passed extended virtually the entire Bill of Rights to the States via the 14th Amendment, it has failed to so with the 2nd Amendment. The decision in Cruikshank that the 14th Amendment does not extend the 2nd Amendment to the States stands has not only been made by the Supreme Court, the decision stands to this day. --Lucky (IANAL)
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?
And in 1908 in Twining, the USSC found that the 5th amendment was similarly a limitation upon the national government, not the state governments, i.e., the states are not required by the fifth amendment to abstain from requiring a defendant to incriminate himself in testimony. But the first 8 amendments have been progressively extended to the states by application of the 14th amendment. For example, the fifth circuit, just eight months ago, finds the invididual model prevails not only over the national government, but also the states, and it declares that Cruikshank fails to "establish any principle governing any of the issues.." regarding the 14th amendment's extension of the Bill of Rights to limit the power of the states. "13. In United States v. Cruikshank, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1875), the Court held that the Second Amendment "is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government." Id. at 592. In Presser v. Illinois, 6 S.Ct. 580, 584 (1886), the Court, reaffirming Cruikshank and citing Barron v. Baltimore, 8 L.Ed. 672 (1833), held that the Second "amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state." And, in Miller v. Texas, 14 S.Ct. 874 (1894), the Court held, with respect to "the second and fourth amendments" that "the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts," citing Barron v. Baltimore and Cruikshank. As these holdings all came well before the Supreme Court began the process of incorporating certain provisions of the first eight amendments into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and as they ultimately rest on a rationale equally applicable to all those amendments, none of them establishes any principle governing any of the issues now before us." http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/5th/9910331cr0.html
Ed wrote:
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?
One might read the decision this way, if the Supreme Court had not specifically written that "The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress". The national government is simply mentioned in the decision because the question at bar was if the 2nd applied to the States via the 14th. Under Cruikshank, the Supreme Court ruled that it does not. The Court held that the 2nd only constrained the national government, not the States, and of the national government, only Congress. [...]
,,,,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?
Under Presser, such an executive order by the President would likely be considered unconstitutional. FYI, the Supreme Court has since revisited, and overturned itself, in just about every aspect of Cruikshank, *except* that the 14th does not extend the 2nd to the States. Which was the issue that Steve Schear inquired about and to which I responded with my post. --Lucky
participants (5)
-
Ed Stone -
Jim Choate -
keyser-soze＠hushmail.com -
Lucky Green -
Steve Schear