DOJ opinion on the 2nd Amendment

[Keith Hamburger]

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment's operative clause, setting out a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms," is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution's structure. The Amendment's prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England's Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment's ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.

Since the Supreme Court has refused to revisit the issue since Miller this is the closest thing we have to a definitive national definition of the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right.

Keith

[Zeebadee]

Yeah, well, the 4th amendment is even more clear, yet the current administration seems to have negated it quite effectively. A large percentage of the citizenry doesn't even seem to mind, they're actually eager to give it up, having been told it's for our "security". How negating the Bill of Rights contributes to our security escapes me completely, yet some citizens have bought into this ruse hook, line, and sinker. The foundations for the 2nd's demise have already been laid - a citizen may be armed, they don't have a uniform, they aren't a member of an organized military unit, they object to the agenda of whatever political party may in power; QED, they must be an "enemy combatant".

[Mr.Vicchio]

Zeebadee, ya know Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush used said powers that you accuse Bush of using to destroy the Bill of Rights. If you are going to inanely pratter off topic, at least put your complaints in perspective. I know you are all upset that Terrorist overseas calling people in America are getting tagged for eavesdropping, and that hurts you. Because it shows despite the million threads posts, movies and news articles to the Contrary Bush is doing his job and trying to keep another 9/11 from happening.

The 2nd Amendment has always been clear. I find it interesting that the more people try to change the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, try to creat "Gun free" cities and countries, they are finding it just doesn't work. Washington D.C., the UK and Australlia are all prime examples of how disarming the public only enables the criminal element.

The founding fathers were intelligent enough to realize that an armed popluace is prey for the criminal element, be it thieves or unjust government.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Zeebadee, ya know Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush used said powers that you accuse Bush of using to destroy the Bill of Rights. If you are going to inanely pratter off topic, at least put your complaints in perspective. I know you are all upset that Terrorist overseas calling people in America are getting tagged for eavesdropping, and that hurts you. Because it shows despite the million threads posts, movies and news articles to the Contrary Bush is doing his job and trying to keep another 9/11 from happening. The 2nd Amendment has always been clear. I find it interesting that the more people try to change the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, try to creat "Gun free" cities and countries, they are finding it just doesn't work. Washington D.C., the UK and Australlia are all prime examples of how disarming the public only enables the criminal element. The founding fathers were intelligent enough to realize that an armed popluace is prey for the criminal element, be it thieves or unjust government.

I didn't see any mention of Bush in the post to which you responded. Did I miss something that you could see so clearly? Or is it you who is deluded?

Keith

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Zeebadee, ya know Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush used said powers that you accuse Bush of using to destroy the Bill of Rights. If you are going to inanely pratter off topic, at least put your complaints in perspective. I know you are all upset that Terrorist overseas calling people in America are getting tagged for eavesdropping, and that hurts you. Because it shows despite the million threads posts, movies and news articles to the Contrary Bush is doing his job and trying to keep another 9/11 from happening. The 2nd Amendment has always been clear. I find it interesting that the more people try to change the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, try to creat "Gun free" cities and countries, they are finding it just doesn't work. Washington D.C., the UK and Australlia are all prime examples of how disarming the public only enables the criminal element. The founding fathers were intelligent enough to realize that an armed popluace is prey for the criminal element, be it thieves or unjust government.

I believe that you're the one off topic. I was merely making the connection between the executive branch violating one amendment, and the current attacks on another. You seem to be all for one violation, why not another?? I never mentioned any of the people you referenced, what have they to do with the topic?? BTW, if the 2nd amendment is clear, the 4th is more so, even you should be able to understand it.

[SteveA]

I think the right to vote ultimately stems from the 2nd Amendment (or at least the rationale behind it). Why don't we let dogs and cats vote in elections? Because listening to their views is optional. They can't defend themselves and so paying attention to their interests is seen as optional by most people. I'm not saying there isn't a better way of doing things but when you dig down far enough, all rights stem from an ability to defend them in some fashion. Every animal has some form of defense or protection, including humans. It's great when we can agree to terms that don't require using any of them though and this usually benefits everyone.

[shield772]

The 2nd Amendment is the Amendment that secures all the others IMO

[RickSp]

Quote by: shield772 The 2nd Amendment is the Amendment that secures all the others IMO

The Second Amendment is the option of last resort, the option of the tooth and claw. If the sword becomes mightier than the pen, most or all of our rights are lost.

[shield772]

True but we have to protect and keep that option open or our rights will be gone for sure

[RickSp]

Quote by: shield772 True but we have to protect and keep that option open or our rights will be gone for sure

Maybe yes, maybe no. I support the 2nd Amendment but I think its real value for the defense of our rights is wildly over rated. One example - most Iraqi households had at least one gun under Saddam's rule. If there are so many guns in Iraq, why is it still a dictatorship?

If gun ownership was widespread under Saddam, it hardly seems sufficient to provide the often claimed Jeffersonian bulwark against tyranny.

All things considered I worry more about the assault on the First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly, the Fourth Amendment rights to be "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" and the Six Amendment right to a fair and speedy trial than I worry about the Second Amendment. If our only choice is to pick up a gun, we have already lost.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: RickSp Maybe yes, maybe no. I support the 2nd Amendment but I think its real value for the defense of our rights is wildly over rated. One example - most Iraqi households had at least one gun under Saddam's rule. If there are so many guns in Iraq, why is it still a dictatorship? If gun ownership was widespread under Saddam, it hardly seems sufficient to provide the often claimed Jeffersonian bulwark against tyranny. All things considered I worry more about the assault on the First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly, the Fourth Amendment rights to be "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" and the Six Amendment right to a fair and speedy trial than I worry about the Second Amendment. If our only choice is to pick up a gun, we have already lost.

Well, it's my thread so I guess I can let it be hijacked if I want.

The real key, in my opinion, is hte division of the people. In the Soviet Union and Sadaam's Iraq the people were divided until they wouldn't cooperate or trust one another. This meant that they wouldn't work together to fight oppression.

Look at our country today, how the two major political parties are working to seperate the people, to divide us. It's always about how the minorities are mistreated or how this group is taking advantage.

This is what weakens the second amendment. Not the strength of the government but our willingness to let them seperate us so we don't provide a unified threat.

Keith

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger This is what weakens the second amendment. Not the strength of the government but our willingness to let them seperate us so we don't provide a unified threat. Keith

Mr. V and shield772 seem to understand the importance of the second amendment, yet they are perfectly willing to give up the fourth. How do they really expect to organize "a unified threat" to enemies of the Constitution if they allow NSA to monitor every aspect of domestic communications?? Do they really believe the politicians when they promise to monitor only the bad guys? Don't they realize that THEY will be the bad guys if they try and mount any organized opposition to a government sponsored threat to the Constitution??

[Chris]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio The 2nd Amendment has always been clear. I find it interesting that the more people try to change the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, try to creat "Gun free" cities and countries, they are finding it just doesn't work. Washington D.C., the UK and Australlia are all prime examples of how disarming the public only enables the criminal element.

Big myth there buddy.

Consult

link

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: |Chris| Big myth there buddy. Consult link

I think you should link to some posts directly rather than a thread with over 200 posts in it. From what I recall from that thread (and, yes, I read it all about a month ago) there wasn't any firm establishment that the increase in crime rates in the UK and Australia was a myth.

Keith

[RickSp]

One of the smaller items that annoyed me about the Badnarick campaign is that Mike kept claiming a direct link between gun control and violent crime. It doesn't exist. The issues are far more complicated than merely access to guns.

Houston has effectively no gun control and has roughly twice as many murders per capita than New York City for example, which has relatively strict gun control. Crime over all is twice as high in Houston as New York. Can this be explained by gun control? Of course, not.

Simplistic statements that either gun ownership or gun control lowers crime invariably miss the point. Societial interaction and crime are way too complex to be explained by pat single variable causes.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Zeebadee, ya know Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush used said powers that you accuse Bush of using to destroy the Bill of Rights. If you are going to inanely pratter off topic, at least put your complaints in perspective. I know you are all upset that Terrorist overseas calling people in America are getting tagged for eavesdropping, and that hurts you. Because it shows despite the million threads posts, movies and news articles to the Contrary Bush is doing his job and trying to keep another 9/11 from happening. The 2nd Amendment has always been clear. I find it interesting that the more people try to change the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, try to creat "Gun free" cities and countries, they are finding it just doesn't work. Washington D.C., the UK and Australlia are all prime examples of how disarming the public only enables the criminal element. The founding fathers were intelligent enough to realize that an armed popluace is prey for the criminal element, be it thieves or unjust government.

If you are going to inanely pratter about issues I take seriously, at least you could get some perspective on what the issues actually may be. I do not have one single problem with a terrorist calling from overseas getting tagged for evesdropping. I care that our president has come to the conclusion that he need not follow the law and actually allow the checks and ballances that were built into the Contitution remain in place. I care that the President has chosen to appoint members of the executive branch as both the law's enforcers and the law's interpretors. I care that he has, in his infinite wisdom, concluded that there is actually no need for any judicial oversight of his actions, and I care that you, having gone through what I presume was at least a High School education, do not see that that might possibly infringe on a liberty or two. Get it?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Isbenski, every president since CARTER has used those same powers in limited cases where the warrent system was too slow to react to a mobile threat. While going around the law Bush informed Congress, had oversight, and the program is on a 45 day rotating review system.

There is a very real threat against this country, and the law allows the president certain leeway in the areana of foriegn intelligence. But don't let reality bite your trumped up fears, you might have to accept Bush isn't doing anything wrong. I know it's hard to accept for some, but that's life.


Oh and Chris, you can try to call the rise in crime in the UK, D.C. and Australia a "myth" after guns were banned, but we all know it's just wishful thinking on the anti-gun lobbies part.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Isbenski, every president since CARTER has used those same powers in limited cases where the warrent system was too slow to react to a mobile threat.

Please provide some evidence for this claim.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Isbenski, every president since CARTER has used those same powers in limited cases where the warrent system was too slow to react to a mobile threat. While going around the law Bush informed Congress, had oversight, and the program is on a 45 day rotating review system. There is a very real threat against this country, and the law allows the president certain leeway in the areana of foriegn intelligence. But don't let reality bite your trumped up fears, you might have to accept Bush isn't doing anything wrong. I know it's hard to accept for some, but that's life. Oh and Chris, you can try to call the rise in crime in the UK, D.C. and Australia a "myth" after guns were banned, but we all know it's just wishful thinking on the anti-gun lobbies part.

Except everyone else did go back to the FISA court and get those retroactive oks, thus subjecting themselves to judicial oversight. Just a tiny difference in your mind, I 'm sure, but a fairly important one when it comes to legality and also a difference in terms of ballance of power between executive and judicial branches. I know these are distinctions that you would like to gloss over, but it's kinda like pretending that shouting "Bush Sucks!" in a crowded theater is no different than shouting "Fire!". I mean, they are both obnoxious and all, and idiots with no sense of timing and appropriateness do stuff like that, but one is substantially more damaging and dangerous than the other.

[Boetie]

Mr. Vicchio posts: While going around the law...

Since you admit Bush Jr violated the law that seems to be okay with you. Do you think making a monkey out of the third branch of our government is okay?

Do you think that when Bush Jr took oath to office to uphold the United States Constitution it included making a monkey out of the third branch of our government?

How embarrassing it must be for the third branch of our government to be clowned by Bush Jr.

Let's see how Junior clowns the third branch of government. Junior has no probable cause to get a warrant. Junior wiretaps illegally and then goes to the court with the illegally obtained information claiming probable cause. There is no one to contest the legality of this probable cause because of this the court has no choice but grant the warrant. The court just got clowned.

Bush Jr violated his oath. Impeach Bush Jr, he cannot be trusted.