how does the case of cruishank vs. united states have anything to do with the second amendment?
i know what the case of over but i dont see why it would have to do with the right to bear arms
- tomLv 61 decade agoFavorite Answer
U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constitution of the United States."
As the other gal said, this is about the 14A, but it did raise a few points about the 2A. Basically that the BoR can only prevent the federal govt from doing things. Rather than empowering citizens. And in the case of the 2A, it means that the US govt is not allowed to take guns away from citizens or prevent them from being in the militia.
- FrostyLv 71 decade ago
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) was an important United States Supreme Court decision in United States constitutional law, one of the earliest to deal with the application of the Bill of Rights to state governments following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.
It's about the right to assemble.