Mr Jody Hudson
Member
U.S. Supreme Court and the Second Amendment
Eric Jeffery
Opponents of the 2nd Amendment rarely mention Supreme Court rulings due to the fact that of the five major cases regarding this fundamental right the Supreme Court consistently backs gun owners.
U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876):
The court stated the 2nd Amendment was a right that existed before the Constitution and that “This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,†There was no sweeping declaration for or against the right to keep and bear arms other than it is a right that existed prior to the Constitution so the Government cannot restrict that right.
Presser v. People of Illinois (1886)
“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view [the Second Amendment] prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government.â€
Miller v. Texas (1894)
Reaffirmed U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876)
U.S. v. Miller (1939):
This case commented that IF a weapon cannot be shown to have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, it cannot be said the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument†THAN the Government can outlaw that weapon.
“In the absence of evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length,' which is the subject of regulation and taxation by the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, it cannot be said the the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument, or that the statute violates such constitutional provision.â€
This case also went into detail about the definition of a “Militiaâ€
“The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.â€
To conclude this case only required evidence that the weapon contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The Court never said the defendants had to belong to a well-regulated militia. In other words the Miller case interpreted the Second Amendment to mean one has the right to own militia type weapons.
Lewis v. U.S. (1980):
In upholding the decision that prevented a felon from owning a weapon the court restated the decision of Miller (1939) related to the purpose of the weapon;
“These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to [445 U.S. 55, 66] the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia").
The courts main decision affirmed the right of the state to prevent a felon from owning a weapon based on the facts that felons cannot vote, hold union office, or practice medicine.
American Citizens have the right to own and maintain weapons for their defense. U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876) stated it was such an apparent right that the Constitution doesn’t need to grant it and that decision was upheld in 1894.
So, irrelevant of the Constitution, Americans can and do posses weapons. Based on this fact there’s no reason to invoke the 2nd Amendment to defend such a basic right.
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/ejeffery_20040817.html
Eric Jeffery
Opponents of the 2nd Amendment rarely mention Supreme Court rulings due to the fact that of the five major cases regarding this fundamental right the Supreme Court consistently backs gun owners.
U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876):
The court stated the 2nd Amendment was a right that existed before the Constitution and that “This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,†There was no sweeping declaration for or against the right to keep and bear arms other than it is a right that existed prior to the Constitution so the Government cannot restrict that right.
Presser v. People of Illinois (1886)
“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view [the Second Amendment] prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government.â€
Miller v. Texas (1894)
Reaffirmed U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876)
U.S. v. Miller (1939):
This case commented that IF a weapon cannot be shown to have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, it cannot be said the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument†THAN the Government can outlaw that weapon.
“In the absence of evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length,' which is the subject of regulation and taxation by the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, it cannot be said the the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument, or that the statute violates such constitutional provision.â€
This case also went into detail about the definition of a “Militiaâ€
“The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.â€
To conclude this case only required evidence that the weapon contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The Court never said the defendants had to belong to a well-regulated militia. In other words the Miller case interpreted the Second Amendment to mean one has the right to own militia type weapons.
Lewis v. U.S. (1980):
In upholding the decision that prevented a felon from owning a weapon the court restated the decision of Miller (1939) related to the purpose of the weapon;
“These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to [445 U.S. 55, 66] the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia").
The courts main decision affirmed the right of the state to prevent a felon from owning a weapon based on the facts that felons cannot vote, hold union office, or practice medicine.
American Citizens have the right to own and maintain weapons for their defense. U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876) stated it was such an apparent right that the Constitution doesn’t need to grant it and that decision was upheld in 1894.
So, irrelevant of the Constitution, Americans can and do posses weapons. Based on this fact there’s no reason to invoke the 2nd Amendment to defend such a basic right.
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/ejeffery_20040817.html
