In article <4ucdqr$[bm 4] at [nw101.infi.net]>, [a--sh--m] at [infi.net] (Albert Isham) wrote:
>"Appellant's theory . . . is that by the Second Amendment to the United 
>States Constitution he is entitled to bear arms.  Appellant is completely 
>wrong about that . . . It must be remembered that the right to bear arms 
>is not a right given by the United States Constitution." - Eckert v. City 
>of Philadelphia, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1973

Eckert was (possibly mis)quoting Cruikshank. The rest of that statement is
"and neither is it in any way dependent on that instrument for its
existence." Cruikshank also held that the right to free assembly is not
given by the United States Constitution.

Both rights are *protected* by the Constitution.


>The NRA has never overturned a gun control law in federal court on the 
>basis of the Second Amendment.

Interestingly, the only times the second amendment is mentioned in a
non-felon context by the Supreme Court, it is so clearly pro-individual
rights that the Supreme Court is scared deathless of it: Dred Scott (my
god, if blacks were citizens we'd be required to let them carry weapons in
the streets!); Cruikshank (my god, if the right to keep and bear arms is
granted by the constitution, we'd have to stop law enforcement from joining
lynch mobs!); Miller (if you can prove it's a military weapon you can own
it and walk the streets with it); and Verdugo-Urquidez (the people in the
second amendment, the first amendment, the fourth amendment and the tenth
amendment are the same people).

Jerry