SR> During the Spring Semester, I took a class on Government, and learned
 SR> something I am surprised I never heard before.
 SR> There has been a lot of talk about the "right to bear arms" and such.
 SR> "You can't take my guns, I have a Constitutional right to it".  I
 SR> find it interesting that the Supreme Court has NEVER interpreted the
 SR> Second Amendment as an individual's right to own firearms.  It has
 SR> ALWAYS interpreted it asthe right of a state to have a militia
 SR> (National Guard).
 SR> If a city wishes to, they can even outlaw firearms within their city
 SR> limits.  It has been done, and is Constitutional!
Hmmmm....ya might want to go back and -read- the records for those cases.
Last I heard, the US Supreme Court has -never- ruled on the exact meaning of
the Second Amendment, only on how it applied to -specific- cases.
The other stumbling block would come at the state level.  The WA state
constitution, for instance, clearly affirms the "individual's" right to keep
and bear arms.  Since the US Constitution does not specifically give the
federal government the power to ban firearms, seems that is a decision that
can only be made at the state level.  (all powers not specifically granted
the federal government are reserved to the states, and to the people.)
While you are reading, you might also look up the definition of "militia" in
the US Code.  (USC 10, I believe).  It says -nothing- about the National
Guard.
Kevin
... Bill Clinton doesn't lie...he's ethically challenged.
-*- TurboEDIT v1.11a [MSP96]
--- Telegard v3.02/mL
---------------