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?