| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| DOJ Memo: 2nd Amendment is Individual Right |
| 2004-12-21 |
| The U.S. Department of Justice has declared that the Second Amendment explicitly recognizes the right of individual Americans to own and carry firearms. Gun rights advocates call the statement a "good first step" but cautioned that it is not the end of the gun control debate. The "Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General" released on the Internet last week is entitled "Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right." The 103 page report, with 437 footnotes, concluded that, "... the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units." That conclusion is based, according to the authors, "... on 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." The Aug. 24 memorandum stated that it did not consider the "substance" of the individual right to own and carry firearms or the legitimacy of government attempts to limit the right. The document also declared that the authors were not calling into question the constitutionality of any particular limitations on owning, carrying or using firearms. Joe Waldron, executive of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), told Cybercast News Service that the memorandum is "a good start, a good first step. "What this does," Waldron explained, "is it puts the federal government -- the U.S. Justice Department -- which is the nation's chief law enforcement agency, on record as recognizing that the Second Amendment, without question, is intended to apply to individuals and not to collective organizations such as the National Guard or any kind of lesser militia." The memo does not protect individuals from being prosecuted under existing gun laws, Waldron acknowledged, but he said it does require a fundamental change in how the government approaches those cases. "It changes the courts' view of the issue and it applies a stricter standard of scrutiny as to whether or not a given law does infringe on an individual's constitutional rights," Waldron said. "They have to look at it from a civil rights perspective now instead of just [whether] the individual violated a given law." EFL, more at link. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #8 2b you are wrong. Have you not read the founding fathers? The government does not grant rights. It can no more grant a right than it can cause my heart to beat and put breath into my lungs. Rights are inborn, the only thing the government can do is either enforce the preservation of the rights or prevent their free exercise. They can free me or they can kill me but the government did not create my life nor the rights I was born with. No judge except The Final Judge can take that away. So its best stated: Imagine that - the Government finally recognizes our natural right to bear arms! |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-12-21 6:50:08 PM |
| #7 2b you are wrong. Have you not read the founding fathers? The government does not grant rights. It can no more grant a right than it can cause my heart to beat and put breath into my lungs. Rights are inborn, the only thing the government can do is either enforce the preservation of the rights or prevent their free exercise. They can free me or they can kill me but the government did not create my life nor the rights I was born with. No judge except The Final Judge can take that away. So its best stated: Imagine that - the Government finally recognizes our natural right to bear arms! |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-12-21 6:50:08 PM |
| #6 OS, I think 2b was being ironic. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2004-12-21 10:41:32 PM |
| #5 2b you are wrong. Have you not read the founding fathers? The government does not grant rights. It can no more grant a right than it can cause my heart to beat and put breath into my lungs. Rights are inborn, the only thing the government can do is either enforce the preservation of the rights or prevent their free exercise. They can free me or they can kill me but the government did not create my life nor the rights I was born with. No judge except The Final Judge can take that away. So its best stated: Imagine that - the Government finally recognizes our natural right to bear arms! |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-12-21 6:50:08 PM |
| #4 I am sure this will convince San Francisco's Board of Supervisors, being that they're all about civil rights and stuff. #disgusted chuckle# |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2004-12-21 3:07:26 PM |
| #3 State failure to enact carry legislation is now a civil rights violation. |
| Posted by: john 2004-12-21 2:28:53 PM |
| #2 Imagine that, we have been granted the right to bear arms! |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-12-21 10:18:30 AM |
| #1 One more statement that the left will use against the hated John Ashcroft, but to us red staters seems to be from the Center for the Studies of the Completely Obvious(tm)! |
| Posted by: BA 2004-12-21 10:15:36 AM |