2 Challenge Gun Cases, Citing Bush Policy

Ed Stone estone at synernet.com
Mon Jun 3 06:43:17 PDT 2002


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?





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list