DOJ Memo: 2nd Amendment is Individual Right

CNSNews ^ | Dec 21, 2004 | Jeff Johnson

[looscnnn]

Don't you mean who/what is he today?

[blackie]

The Second Amendment...
America's Original Homeland Security!

Be Ever Vigilant!

[Blood of Tyrants]

As I have said, this is all good and nice, but the next 'Rat Attorney General will simply throw this out and proceed as if the government has the right to disarm the citizens and do as the damned well please. I will not be happy until the Supreme Court has stated the same thing and over turned some of the most unconstitutional anti-gun laws.

[45Auto]

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.

[45Auto]

My position is that the 1934 NFA, the 1968 GCA, the Brady Bill, the restraining order nonsense, and the currently sunsetted 1994 AW ban are all unconstitutional. Getting rid of the federal AW ban was a start. My bet is if it had to have been actively voted against, those cowardly bastards in Congress would have failed in their duty to protect the Constitution and we would still be burdened with it.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Thank God for the congressman who managed to slip the sunset clause in there.

[DMZFrank]

"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.

[NormalGuy]

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)

[RBroadfoot]

"There is no such thing as a "Collective Right", quasi or otherwise."

It's kinda like "gay marriage".

[RBroadfoot]

Regardless of where you put the commas or how many you use, it's an individual right that shall not be infringed. The meaning is plain. You're absolutely right about that!

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

"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.

[vannrox]

...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

---

[This is a note to me from Dr. Linda Thompson of the American Justice Federation that I am passing along to everyone...email me with your comments ken]

[to ken]
You left off the MOST IMPORTANT PART of the Bill of Rights -- the PREAMBLE which tells SPECIFICALLY that the Bill of Rights was to make sure the government knew it was limited to the powers stated in the Constitution and if it didn't, the amendments were rights of the people the government couldn't screw with.
Our revisionist historians ALWAYS leave this off the Constitution!!!
Here's a copy!!!

---

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.

---

The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the powers of our Constitution.

There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be changed by the will of the people. By this line of reasoning the amendments are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception. The Bill of Rights is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.

End the deception.