Does anyone know what the UL IP60 rating means on a safe?

I would be curious to find out why the law preventing the ownership of guns was not challenged -- as it completely prohibits the exercision of a right granted under the U.S. Constitution...

An official of ANY governmental body who violates your constitutional rights (especially the ones pertaining to due process) can get into very serious trouble...

Evan, ~~ formerly a maintenance man, now a college student...

Tell that to the IRS ,

that was years ago,,,,no ideas of the names of the 2 towns even anymore.. but you should be able to find it..

maybe the ILA.org web site.. or restrictive gun laws in the US in a search engine --Shiva--

Thanks. I'll forward that right along.

The ammendment starts "In order to establish a well regulated militia.." [or similar, I didn't look it up]. In spite of an often stated right for individuals to bear arms I believe the Supreme Court has ruled:

-the right to bear arms applies to state militias, which are now state national guards

-the ammendment restricts the federal government, not states.

Bud--

Evan wrote:

Amendment II (1791)

" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bare Arms, shall not be infringed "

Nothing in the text of the 2nd Amendment explicitly requires that the "people" bearing Arms need be a member of a militia, only that the right of the people to keep and bare Arms is necessary in order to maintain the security of a free state...

The intent of the Amendment was to provide the people a means of maintaining their own security independent of the government... (Which the National Guard is NOT... The government has full and complete control of the National Guard, not the "people"...)

The rights of the "states" are restricted in 1868 by the 14th Amendment that prohibits the states from abridging the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States... It also establishes the "due process of law" rights...

Evan, ~~ formerly a maintenance man, now a college student...

1- So whats the difference whether "a well regulated militia" is included or not? 2- In 1876 in the case US v. Cruikshank, the Supreme Court ruled that: "The second amendment declares that it [bearing arms for a lawful purpose] 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 Constituton of the United States.

This decision is dated after the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.

The states, counties, cities are not bound by the 2nd amendment. There are a lot of lower court decisions affirming this (see below).

In fact states, counties and cities do have restrictions on guns. Four posts back Shiva refered to a gun ban in a Chicago suburb.

And an attempt was made in Minnesota to put a 2nd-amendment-type amendment into the state constitution. Why would that be necessary.

I suspect if you got a knowlegable NRA person in a locked room and forced them to give an answer they would acknowledge this 2nd Amendment limitation.

3- In 1939 in the case US v. Miller, the Supreme Court involved a chalenge to a Federal law regulating firearms - specifically a sawed off shotgun. Part of the decision was that posession of the gun did not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" and that "we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument".

My understanding is that 'militia' is tied to the current National Guard.

In fact there have been, and are, Federal restrictions on guns, perhaps the most recent being assault rifles. Also, why were 'state militias' in vogue before the Oklahoma City bombing.

The justice department, until John Ashcroft, held the view that the 2nd Amendment was not an individual right. This included the justice department under the well known leftie Ronald Regan.

4- In a more recent case (which I actually picked at random) before the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals decided in 1995, the case APRIL LOVE v. PEPERSACK et al, involved a denial of Ms Love's handgun purchase under Maryland law due to a criminal background. The courts decision:

"Citing law review articles, Love argues that she has an individual federal constitutional right to "keep and bear" a handgun, and Maryland may not infringe upon this right.

"She is wrong on both counts. The Second Amendment does not apply to the states. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). Moreover, even as against federal regulation, the amendment does not confer an absolute individual right to bear any type of firearm. In 1939, the Supreme Court held that the federal statute prohibiting possession of a sawed-off shotgun was constitutional, because the defendant had not shown that his possession of such a gun bore a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939). Since then, the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual, right. This court's precedent is United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (4th Cir. 1974). In Johnson, the defendant challenged the constitutionality of the federal statute prohibiting possession of firearms by convicted felons. We were not impressed (id. at 550):

"Johnson's argument that [18 U.S.C. §] 922(g) is an unconstitutional violation of his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not new. See, e.g., United States v. Miller , 307 U.S. 174 , 59 S.Ct. 816,

83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939).

"The courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." 307 U.S. at 178 , 59 S.Ct. at 818. Johnson presents no evidence that section 922(g) in any way affects the maintenance of a well regulated militia.

"Love has likewise not identified how her possession of a handgun will preserve or insure the effectiveness of the militia."

This is a recent case citing both of the Supreme Court cases above.

5- I am really not interested in continuing this argument, largely because the 'right to bear arms', for many, is a religous view which is not suceptable to rational argument. (For many others it is the result of a "lie repeated often enough".) It is also waaaay off topic.

Bud--