Second Amendment Solidified

[Balls 0]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1363.shtml

Quote

Second Amendment Solidified
by Kurt Williamsen
May 16, 2005

The Department of Justice issued an extensive report that very clearly and definitely shows that the Second Amendment was intended to protect an individual right.

The U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel of the United States was charged by the attorney general with addressing "the question whether the right secured by the Second Amendment belongs only to the states, only to persons serving in state-organized militia units like the National Guard, or to individuals generally." The answer was definitive: "The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of states or a right restricted to persons serving in militias."

The 102-page memorandum — made public on the Department of Justice's website on December 17, 2004 — is perhaps the most exhaustive research ever done on this contentious topic and includes a 42-page bibliography. Though the report does not address the "constitutionality, under the Second Amendment, of any particular limitations on owning, carrying, or using firearms," it does comment on the fact that the "alternative views" of the Second Amendment are relatively modern constructs.

Because in recent history, courts (and various heads of the Justice Department) have reversed themselves in their interpretation of the Second Amendment, first deciding that it was an individual right and then deciding that it was a "collective" or state's right, and then back again, the Office of Legal Counsel examined 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, to discern its proper meaning."

The memorandum analyzes in depth each key phrase of the Second Amendment: "right of the people," "keep and bear arms," and "well regulated militia." Its analysis finds that in no way could the Second Amendment be properly construed to be anything other than a protection of an individual right.

In examining the word "right" as it is used in the Constitution, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) concluded that a right was something reserved to individuals. The OLC said that it is clear that whenever the word "right" is used in the Constitution, it means an individual right, saying, "not once does the Constitution confer a 'right' on any governmental entity, state or federal. Nor does it confer any 'right' restricted to persons in governmental service," meaning that the Second Amendment "right" is not restricted to people in active military service nor any other governmental service.

Also, when the word "right" is conjoined with the phrase "of the people," its meaning is very distinct. This phrase is used two other times in the Constitution, "and both times refers to a personal right, which belongs to individuals. The First Amendment secures 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances,' and the Fourth safeguards '[t]he right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.'"

The OLC also concluded that the first four amendments to the Constitution were intended to be a subset of rights in the Bill of Rights, specifically containing rights that were reserved to individuals to possess and use certain property. This interpretation, according to the OLC — though somewhat erroneous because the Bill of Rights does not grant rights, but restrains government from violating them — makes sense in light of English law, from which the Founders drew much of their inspiration, and in light of the various colonial laws at the time.

English law allowed one to keep a gun "for the defence of his house and family." And even though game laws in place in England at the time prevented most people from using guns to hunt game, "in 1752 the Chief Justice of the King's Bench reaffirmed that it was 'not to be imagined' that Parliament in [the Game Act] had intended 'to disarm all the people of England.'" Also, Pennsylvania's Declaration of Rights of September 1776, which reflects the language of the other colonies' Declarations of Rights, makes clear that individuals have the right to keep arms: "That people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies … are dangerous to liberty, they ought not be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

In analyzing the section of the Second Amendment that states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," the OLC shows that this wording was never intended to mean that only people in an organized military group have the right to keep and bear arms. In making its case, the OLC made several points: the term "militia" at the time of the Founding was "the entire population of able-bodied male citizens"; a preface to an amendment, of which this wording is an example, cannot logically be interpreted to take away the right that is protected by the Amendment; and the Second Amendment was meant to secure people in their right to possess guns for individual self-defense.

In refuting the liberal-activist idea that the words "a well regulated Militia" in the Second Amendment are meant to confine the "right" to people in the regular military, the OLC notes that what this section of the amendment actually does, if it's interpreted as it would have been in the days of the Founding, is to justify the necessity of arming the populace-at-large. As correctly interpreted, this section of the Second Amendment essentially states that in order for states to be able to create a well-regulated militia, should the necessity arise, and for the "free State" that it helps to secure, citizens should be armed so that they become sufficiently familiar with firearms and capable in their use.

At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, the word "militia" referred to "all able-bodied men." A smaller group of better-trained professional soldiers was called a "select militia" or a "select corps." In fact, because the militia was considered to be all able-bodied men "two months after the Second Amendment was officially ratified...," the Militia Act required white male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 to be "enrolled in the militia," and "each enrolled citizen was required to provide his own arms — 'a good musket or firelock' or 'a good rifle.'"

This view of the Second Amendment is further solidified when one realizes the absurdity of trying to assert that the preface to the amendment takes away the freedom protected by the amendment — and that is precisely what liberal activists are asserting. A preface, as it was used in the Constitution, was given to explain why the Founding Fathers thought that that particular portion of the Constitution was necessary (in this case, the preface explains why the individual right to own guns was necessary).

To clarify the point, the OLC points to Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution, empowering Congress to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia." When that article had reached its final form, "George Mason proposed 'to preface' it with the phrase, 'And that the liberties of the people may be better secured against the danger of' standing armies. Madison spoke in favor, because the preface would 'discountenance' a peacetime army while 'not restrain[ing] Congress from establishing'" one.

Finally, this interpretation of the Second Amendment becomes extremely grounded when one grasps that the Second Amendment was largely instituted to allow individuals to protect themselves: "Many early state constitutions, including some written before the Founding … declared the Bill of Rights ratified,... protected an individual right to 'bear arms' in 'defense of himself and the State' or in 'defense of themselves and the State,' indicating that a person might be said to 'bear arms' in self-defense."

In short, the modern twisted translation of the Second Amendment by liberal activists doesn't even resemble the protection built into the Bill of Rights whereby the government is restrained from violating our God-given right to individual self-defense.

To view the full text of the Department of Justice memorandum, go to www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

In short, the modern twisted translation of the Second Amendment by liberal activists doesn't even resemble the protection built into the Bill of Rights whereby the government is restrained from violating our God-given right to individual self-defense.

----------------------------------------
....so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

[Tink1717 2]

The DOJ doesn't interpret the constitution. The SCOTUS does that. They are the final authority on constitutional matters.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

The DOJ doesn't interpret the constitution. The SCOTUS does that. They are the final authority on constitutional matters.

Are you sure? From what I've read on here I could have sworn it's the NRA.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[EBSB52 0]

Ya, what the other 2 guys said. Not only that, but whatever authority, in this case the US Sup Ct, can change their mind at any time.

The Department of Justice issued an extensive report that very clearly and definitely shows that the Second Amendment was intended to protect an individual right.

The Bill of Rights is all about individual rights, so where's the news here?

As I've asked before and was never answered, What is a well regulated militia? If it's well regulated then that opens the door to all kinds of.... let's say, regulation; we can't call regulation anti-Constitutional.

Next point: The Const was written at a time when we had no staning army, so the word, "necessary" alotted us rights then and now relieves any need for private gun ownership now. It's one of those rights that could easily fade in and out, based upon need.

Don't get me wrong, if asked my opinion I would come off more extreme than Kennedy, but this is objective argumentation. It's fine to be passionate about issues, but don't let them cloud objectivity. Also, the best way to argue for your position is to learn how to argue against it, that way you can perceive what the opposition might throw at you and be prepared. As of now I can't find an answer to the 2 issues I posed.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

The DOJ doesn't interpret the constitution. The SCOTUS does that. They are the final authority on constitutional matters.

And unlike what a lot of people are claiming, the Supreme Court HAS spoken on the second amendment, and found without exception that it recognizes an individual right.

edit: Besides, the DOJ files amicus briefs in many Supreme Court and Circuit Court cases. They also need to understand the law as it is their job to enforce it. Before you knock the DOJ memo, go ahead and read it, then take a peak at the bibliography. It cites original writings, debate by the framers, and case law from Supreme Court.

Hardly "revising" its meaning, don't you think? I'd say it's more like recognizing what it was always meant to say.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

As I've asked before and was never answered, What is a well regulated militia? If it's well regulated then that opens the door to all kinds of.... let's say, regulation; we can't call regulation anti-Constitutional.

You've been answered, but since you have ignored them for one reason or another, here we go again.

To the framers, "well regulated" means in good working order. It does not mean there should be tens of thousands of regulations.

Congress is granted the power to

Quote

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

in Article 1, Section 8.

Do you think they just forgot, or that they felt the need to repeat themselves that one time? Or do you think it more likely that you simply misunderstood the meaning of the words?

Militia means all able bodied men of service age (18-45, give or take).

Also, as has been explained in general, and to you specifically, the militia clause of the second amendment is a subjective clause. It by no means limits the entire amendment. It provides a reason, not a limitation.

Quote

Next point: The Const was written at a time when we had no staning army, so the word, "necessary" alotted us rights then and now relieves any need for private gun ownership now. It's one of those rights that could easily fade in and out, based upon need.

First, it would not be difficult to argue that an armed citizenry is still necessary to the security of a free state. Second, even if that were not true, SUBJECTIVE CLAUSE.

Consider yourself answered, again.

Quote

Don't get me wrong, if asked my opinion I would come off more extreme than Kennedy, but this is objective argumentation. It's fine to be passionate about issues, but don't let them cloud objectivity. Also, the best way to argue for your position is to learn how to argue against it, that way you can perceive what the opposition might throw at you and be prepared. As of now I can't find an answer to the 2 issues I posed.

While I acknowledge the realities of the day, that doesn't make them more acceptable. The facts remain, whether they have been followed or not. Just because something is law, that doesn't mean it should stay law. Hence the lobbying, phone calls, letter writing, etc.

If you think I don't know how anti-rights people argue, then (A) you've missed my warnings to blue-state-democrat voters than in supporting a person who is reading out one right, they are laying the ground work for reading out all our rights, and (B) you've never seen me debate for gun control.

Pick up your jaw, yes, I argued for gun control once. It was for an project at UMCP. The assignment was to find someone we disagreed with strongly, and argue eachother's position before the class.

The sad things is my opponent was weak and I won. Afterwards, when I explained to the class what I would've said that he didn't, and what he left out, suddenly they understood why I oppose people who would limit our rights.


Jury, Witness, Soap, Ballot, Cartridge
Do you know what those things are?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*