The U.S. Department of Justice has declared that the Second Amendment explicitly recognizes the right of individual Americans to own and carry firearms. Gun rights advocates call the statement a "good first step" but cautioned that it is not the end of the gun control debate.

The "Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General" released on the Internet last week is entitled "Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right."

The 103 page report, with 437 footnotes, concluded that, "... the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units."

That conclusion is based, according to the authors, "... on the Amendment's text, as commonly understood at the time of its adoption and interpreted in light of other provisions of the Constitution and the Amendment's historical antecedents."

The Aug. 24 memorandum stated that it did not consider the "substance" of the individual right to own and carry firearms or the legitimacy of government attempts to limit the right. The document also declared that the authors were not calling into question the constitutionality of any particular limitations on owning, carrying or using firearms.

Joe Waldron, executive of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), told Cybercast News Service that the memorandum is "a good start, a good first step.

"What this does," Waldron explained, "is it puts the federal government -- the U.S. Justice Department -- which is the nation's chief law enforcement agency, on record as recognizing that the Second Amendment, without question, is intended to apply to individuals and not to collective organizations such as the National Guard or any kind of lesser militia."

The memo does not protect individuals from being prosecuted under existing gun laws, Waldron acknowledged, but he said it does require a fundamental change in how the government approaches those cases.

"It changes the courts' view of the issue and it applies a stricter standard of scrutiny as to whether or not a given law does infringe on an individual's constitutional rights," Waldron said. "They have to look at it from a civil rights perspective now instead of just [whether] the individual violated a given law."

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence did not return calls seeking comment on the Justice Department's determination, but the organization has spoken out against the "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment frequently in the past, including in an amicus brief filed in federal court in 1999.

Dennis Henigan, director of the Brady Center's Legal Action Project, also spoke against the "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment at James Madison University in 2002.

"Both the language and history of the Second Amendment show that its subject matter was not individual rights," Henigan said, "but rather the distribution of military power in society between the states and the federal government."

"A 'right of the people' is ordinarily and most naturally a right of individuals, not of a State and not merely of those serving the State as militiamen. The phrase 'keep arms' at the time of the Founding usually indicated the private ownership and retention of arms by individuals as individuals, not the stockpiling of arms by a government or its soldiers, and the phrase certainly had that meaning when used in connection with a 'right of the people,'" the Justice Department report stated.

"Moreover, the Second Amendment appears in the Bill of Rights amid amendments securing numerous individual rights, a placement that makes it likely that the right of the people to keep and bear arms likewise belongs to individuals," the document continued.

Waldron expects the opinion to be introduced in support of the "individual rights" of gun owners in several cases currently working their way through the federal courts. His hope is that one of those cases will reach the Supreme Court.

"Is this the end, is this the Omega? Absolutely not," Waldron said. "The Omega will come when the Supreme Court begins to overturn selected gun control laws based on the fact that they do infringe upon the individual right protected in the Constitution."

Your comment about shall not be infringed is right on the money. This document, as good as it is, like all court documents from the last 100 years, does not address these last four words for an obvious reason: The people who wrote this document, like all judges, are agents of the government. As such, they like to give themselves an out, a comfortable position in which they can say the RKBA is a right of all citizens to exercise as individuals, but they reserve the authority to proscribe that right in narrowly defined ways. Such was also the conclusion of the 5th Circuit Court's decision in Emerson. To define the words, shall not be infringed as implied by original intent would mean that all current gun laws are unconstitutional and therefore null and void.

"The fact that militia members are no longer required to supply their own arms when reporting for service has depleted the Second Amendment of most of its vitality," the Brady Center stated. "And, in fact, the Second Amendment remains relevant today because the rights it protects are held by the National Guard."

IDIOT!!! That is PRECISELY why the National Guard is NOT the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment, but just another reserve component of the US Army or Air Force that is USUALLY available for state service, but not always. (in WWII most NG units were in FEDERAL service and NOT available for state missions since many were overseas) Here in Illinois the state formed the Illinois Reserve Militia to compensate for the loss of the guard to state service. Those people mainly supplied their OWN military pattern weapons when summoned for duty.

Gun grabbers are increasingly trying to separate the right to keep and bear arms from its constitutional underpinnings. To everyone but liberals and gun grabbers the word militia implies a body organized for military use. The Supreme Court Miller decision of 1939 held that the militia was 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

To begin with, only the national government was represented at the trial. With nobody arguing to the contrary, the court followed standard court procedure and assumed that the law was constitutional until proven otherwise. If both sides were present, the outcome may have been much different.

However, since only one party showed up, the case will stand in the court records as is. As to the militia, Mr. Justice McReynolds related the beliefs of the Founding Fathers when commenting historically about the Second Amendment. He stated that, ". . .The common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

It is clear that the firearms that are most suited for modern-day militia use are those semi automatic military pattern weapons that the yellow press calls "assault weapons". Since nations such as the Swiss trust their citizenry with true selective fire assault rifles, it seems to me that this country ought to be at least able to trust its law-abiding citizenry with the semi automatic version.

Self-defense is a vital corollary benefit of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But its primary constitutional reason for being is for service in the well-regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state. WE must be prepared to maintain that security against even our own forces that are responding to the orders of a tyrannical government, and the only viable way to counter a standing army's qualitative advantage is with a huge quantitative one. Don't let the gun grabbers and their politician allies separate us from the constitutional reason for the right to keep and bear arms. Miltary pattern weapons are precisly the weapons that should be MOST constitutionally protected. Even defenders of the right often neglect the constitutional aspect of it, and concentrate on their near non-existent use in crime.

Frank, well said. In addition to a focus on "bear arms" there needs to be an understanding of "militia"

The militia was those heros in a hijacked plane over Pennsylvania. They did not have "guns".

The red berets of Curis Sliwa are the "militia". The founders knew two things. #1 It was financially and physically impossible for any government to protect its citizens all of the time. #2 If a government did try to protect everybody all the time, then the government would become the criminal because power corrupts.

Thus, what is needed is for the "militia", which means you and me, to take actions (with or without arms) to protect ourselves, our families and our neighbors.

(Central Highlands Bob)

"WE must be prepared to maintain that security against even our own forces that are responding to the orders of a tyrannical government, and the only viable way to counter a standing army's qualitative advantage is with a huge quantitative one. Don't let the gun grabbers and their politician allies separate us from the constitutional reason for the right to keep and bear arms."

I might also add that everyone who owns a firearm needs training to use that firearm. A well-regulated militia means a well maintained militia. If we have firearms but do not have adequate training to use them, they will be of little use to us when we need them. Worst we could end up killing ourselves or a loved one if we do not train.

I believe we all need to get correct training with firearms even if we end up needing to pay several hundred dollars to get that training.

...Mordue held that Bach could not allege a constitutional right to bear arms because the "Second Amendment is not a source of individual rights."...

IGNORANT OR INTENTIONALLY REVISIONIST JUDGES!

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights

ken

Effective December 15, 1791
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

End the deception.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.