mwm%opal.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (11/11/86)
>> Many people claim that the second amendment provides the general >> populace a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. This is >> demonstrably false. It would be interesting to see that demonstration. Not nice, and not something I look forward to, but interesting as an exercise in twisting the meaning of other peoples words. (Just so you know where I stand :-). >> For many years, localities such as New York City have had laws >> which abridge this putative right. Many people have been convicted >> of violating these laws. During all this time, the Supreme Court >> has never overturned such a conviction due to conflict with the >> second amentment. If the Court really believed that such a right >> existed,the NRA would have found a suitable test case decades ago. >> The Court's silence speaks volumes. Yup, it says "this hasn't been tested." Until the Court rules on such a case and says that the law is or isn't unconstitutional, then that is the most you can conclude. Do you have case references to show that this form of Gun Control has been ruled constitutional? >> What the anti-gun-control people really mean is that *they* (not >> the Court) interpret the amendment to provide such a right. Anyone >> can interpret the constitution, but only the Court's interpretation >> really counts. Not quite - you need to say "THIS Supreme Court's interpretation." The Supreme Court has been known to decide that a previous Supreme Court decision was wrong. Aren't malleable rights fun? <mike -------
jim@ll-xn.ARPA@oswald.UUCP (01/05/87)
In a recent article, mwm%opal.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU writes: >> Many people claim that the second amendment provides the general >> populace a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. This is >> demonstrably false. > >It would be interesting to see that demonstration. O.K. The Supreme Court doesn't have a monopoly on legal interpretation of the U.S. constitution. Every court, both federal and state, is bound to enforce, and therefore to interpret, the constitution. The Supreme Court's interpretetions bind all lower courts, but where the Supreme Court is silent, lower court rulings are binding. Without exception, every gun control case that has come before the courts has denied the existence of a general right to keep and bear arms. Such a general right therefore does not exist. Q.E.D. >Aren't malleable rights fun? Of course. Constitutional rights are LEGAL rights, not NATURAL rights, and are therefore quite mutable. Before Roe v. Wade, there was no constitutional right to an abortion. Now, there is such a right. In future the Court may recind the constitutional right to an abortion. I merely assert that a general right to keep and bear arms does not exist. The question 'will such a right exist in the future?' is a speculative one. I see no groundswell of legal opinion in favor of such a general right, so I think its estabishment unlikely in the near future. -- Jim Olsen ...!{decvax,lll-crg,mit-eddie,seismo}!ll-xn!oswald!jim --- Jim Olsen ...!{decvax,lll-crg,mit-eddie,seismo}!ll-xn!oswald!jim -------