Understanding Constitutional RIGHTS

Just in case there is anyone (besides Rudy) that believes the Constitution ganted you the Right to Keep and Bear Arms:

"In 1875, in the case of United States v Cruikshank, 92 US 542 (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that the rights enumerated in the First and Second Amendments were not granted by the Constitution and were not dependent upon the Constitution for their existence. The Court also ruled that these Amendments were restraints on the powers of the federal government."

"In discussing federal powers, the Court said:
"The Government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people. No rights can be acquired under the Constitution or laws of the United States, except as the Government of the United States has the authority to grant or secure. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left under the protection of the States."

"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 [Federal] Government."

"Since the right to keep and bear arms was not created by the Second Amendment, it cannot be classified as a constitutional right because, as acknowledged by the Court, the right exists independent of the Amendment. Thus, ... repeal of the Second Amendment would not negate the right. The sole purpose of the Amendment, as stated by the Court, was to restrain the powers of the federal government concerning the right to keep and bear arms."

I hope that the Suprimes are able to keep this in mid in the upgoming DC case.