>> There has been a lot of talk about the "right to bear arms" and 
 >> such.  "You
 >> can't take my guns, I have a Constitutional right to it".  I find it
 >>interesting that the Supreme Court has NEVER interpreted the Second  
Amendment
 >> as an individual's right to own firearms.  It has ALWAYS interpreted 
 >> it as the right of a state to have a militia (National Guard).  
 > 
 > Sean,
 >  I don't know what book they were using, but that's exactly, 100% 
 > WRONG.
 > 
 > The Supreme Court has actually done very little ruling in this area, 
 > but it is very clear that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual 
 > right, not a collective right (IE: militia or National Guard).
      Fido bytes again:
     Taken from "They Register Cars, Don't They?" by Mark Moritz
        Reprinted from the January/February 1991 The Firing Line -
       "The Bullet Trap"   Arizona State Rifle and Pistol Association
           Re: Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment.
    The Court most recently mentioned the Second Amendment in dicta in
    United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 110 S. Ct. 1839 (1990).
    Verdugo-Urquidez was a citizen and resident of Mexico, and a drug
    dealer.  The Mexican police arrested him in Mexico, and brought him to
    the U.S., where the U.S. cops arrested him.  With the permission of the
    Mexican police, the U.S. narcs searched his residence (in Mexico), and
    found documentary evidence detailing drug shipments to the U.S.
    Verdugo-Urquidez moved for suppression of that evidence as a violation
    of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and
    seizures.
 
    The question for the court: Does the Fourth Amendment apply to
    non-resident non-citizens outside the U.S.?  The answer: no.
 
    The court's reasoning: The Fourth Amendment protects the right of "the
    people" to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.  Who
    are "the people"?  According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, the phrase
    "the people" was a term of art used by the Framers.  Rehnquist wrote:
 
         The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and
         bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that
         certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the
         people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1, ("Congress shall make no
         law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to
         assemble"); Art. I, s 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives
         shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the
         People of the several States") (emphasis added).  While this
         textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the
         people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and
         Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in
         the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who
         are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed
         sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of
         that community.  110 S. Ct. at 1061.
 
    Since Verdugo-Urquidez is not part of "the people," he is not protected
    by the Fourth Amendments (nor, apparently, by the First, Second, Ninth,
    or Tenth).
 
    The Supreme Court therefore views the words "the people" in the Second
    Amendment to have the same meaning as in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and
    Tenth Amendments.  If "the people" really meant the right of states to
    maintain a militia (as suggested by J. Sultan), then we would be left
    with the absurd notion that only the states have the right to peaceably
    assemble, only the states have the right to be secure in their persons
    and property, etc.  The Supreme Court's position is indisputable: the
    Second Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms. Also
    instructive is the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of
    the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress,
    Second Session (February 1982):
 
     The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and
    wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United
    States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and
    court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that
    what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own
    and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.
This posting from some years ago is repeated for your collective edification 
and enlightenment. Its interesting to note that the antis completely ignore 
this ruling.*Rich*Englewood*Colorado*Have an accurate day*
--- FLAME v1.1
---------------