This memorandum from the U.S. Department of Justice (PDF) says that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, not a state right or a right only of those in militias. It goes on at great length to dispel the misconceptions surrounding the Second Amendment and is required reading for people on any side of the issue.
If you can’t spend two hours reading it right now, here’s the one-paragraph conclusion:
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.
(1 votes, average: 1.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
Karl Marx would love the popular moves among politicians in various state governments and the federal government to ban so-called "junk" food in schools, and to "put healthy food in" convenience stores and on the tables of those they define as poor. It's a very elitist and arrogant mindset that promotes this ideology, and it needs to be addressed.
Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
dago
Dec 20, 2004
As that’s the executive branch, that just have an “FYI” value and basically is just another opinion.
That’s also the same DoJ that justified the use of torture (ref).
Bob
Dec 20, 2004
The DoJ didn’t justify the use of torture: it noted that torture may in some instances be justified. There’s a difference. Moreover, it simply issued a legal opinion noting that certain international treaties regarding the use of torture conflict with the Constitution, and thus have no bearing within the US.
Mike
Dec 20, 2004
As I pointed out when you first poointed this out on Slashdot, this is solely the legal opinion of the Attorney General’s office. It is a document created at the request of John Ashcroft, by attorney’s that he appointed, and pushing an agenda that he set. If you move up to the directory that contains the file (“olc”), you see that it was created by the Office of Legal Counsel. Click on the “About” link & you get the following: “The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel assists the Attorney General in his function as legal advisor to the President and all the executive branch agencies. The Office drafts legal opinions of the Attorney General…”
Under any other administration, this would have little more legal bearing than a similar paper written by myself.
pherris
Dec 20, 2004
Is that why so many postal workers carry weapons to work? =)
All kidding a side, does that mean individuals can form their own “militia”? If an individual’s right to bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment one could also argue the same for a “well regulated Militia”.
I swing pretty hard to the left on many of issues but I have to agree with the Libertarians on this one. My only request is that it (weapon and ammo) be secured under lock and key and people treat their weapons with responsibility. Hell, I even think former felons of nonviolent crimes should be able own one.
Years ago I moved from MA (where I was raised and currently live) to UT. A few months after I moved I decided to buy a second Colt 1911 ACP (I had a gold cup but wanted something more like I carried in the military). When I asked the clerk at the local gun shop what I needed (thinking permits, etc.) he looked at me strangely and said “Cash … and a UT driver’s license”. Very refreshing.
Off topic: Hey, IO, you post some great stuff on /. . Also, good to see a link to the Cato Institute. IMO they turn out so great stuff.
Michael Hampton
Dec 20, 2004
It’s also a very well researched opinion, based on actual history, precedent, and the Constitution itself, which is far more than can be said of the dissenting opinions.
RedBeard
Dec 22, 2004
pherris – actually, if you’re an able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, and are a citizen of the US or have declared an intent to become a citizen of the US, you’re already part of the militia as defined in US Code Title 10, Section 311.
Of course, the DOJ aren’t the only ones who think the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right; Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA School of Law, testified to that effect before the Senate back in 1998.
bloc
Dec 30, 2004
Ok, I’m new here, but I’ve always felt discussions on this issue miss the most important point. How do you define “arms”? Should the average citizen be allowed to own 50 cals, grenage launchers, artillery, tanks, etc? Should there be any restrictions on “arms” and if so where do you draw the line?
Jul 26, 2005
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory fires civil rights blogger Joe Huffman - IO ERROR
Oct 21, 2005
Gun manufacturers protected from frivolous lawsuits - IO ERROR
Jun 10, 2006
Murder Capital - Homeland Stupidity
Mar 09, 2007
D.C. handgun ban found unconstitutional - Homeland Stupidity
Apr 07, 2007
ACLU in Texas helps protect traveling gun owners - Homeland Stupidity
May 18, 2007
After tornado, FEMA disarms town, turns away help - Homeland Stupidity