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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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??