OT- 2nd Amendment IS an individual right-Officially

formatting link

AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT

By Geoff Metcalf
December 24, 2004
NewsWithViews.com
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it." --Thomas Jefferson
Guess what? The Second Amendment, ("A well regulated Militia being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.") has, does, and will
secure "an individual right to keep and bear arms."
You knew that. I knew that. However, a cabal of leftists remains in
denial over what even their own Constitutional scholar had concluded.
Notwithstanding the itching and moaning and gnashing of teeth from the
left wing radical fringe, it is an empirical fact that our God given
inalienable right to keep and bear arms is FACT.
The U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel has
officially concluded the Second Amendment "secures an individual right
to keep and bear arms." Duh!
Despite having been dated Aug. 24, the 93-page document was just
released. 'Someone' delayed the release for apparent political
reasons. This is passing strange considering even liberal democrats
acknowledge one of the key components that cost Al Gore his
presidential dream was his having embraced the Chuck Schumer/Diane
Fienstein/Babs Boxer anti-gun mantra.
The belatedly released research notes, "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."
As Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan M. Gottlieb observed,
"Henceforth, all Americans will know that the claim by anti-gunners
that the Amendment only protects some mythical right of the states to
form militias and National Guard units is an outright fraud."
Please note the 'allegedly unbiased' mainstream hasn't said "Jack"
about this epiphany.
Even, liberal darling and Harvard Constitutional Law Professor
Laurence Tribe acknowledged the obvious in 1999 (and again the
mainstream media silence was deafening).
Tribe is arguably the most influential living American constitutional
scholar. In 1999 he concluded, "the federal government may not disarm
individual citizens without some unusually strong justification."
Tribe confirmed it includes an individual right, "admittedly of
uncertain scope," to "possess and use firearms in the defense of
themselves and their homes."
The personification of the Metcalf Bromide of "Some people just don't
want to be confused with FACTS that contradict their preconceived
opinions or prejudices." Is, and has been, the ant-gun crowd.
In 2002 when a legal brief was filed by the Justice Department
declaring that this protection extends to an individual's right to
keep and bear arms irrespective of their involvement in a state
militia the gun control crowd threw a hissy fit. Sonic wedgie time:
"The worst fears about Attorney General Ashcroft have come true: His
extreme ideology on guns has now become government policy." said Mike
Barnes, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Despite his extensive liberal bona fides, Tribe (begrudgingly and
belatedly) concluded that the Constitution ensured to each American a
right to "possess and use firearms in defense of themselves and their
homes."
The Second Amendment never has meant 'Jack-spit' about bird hunting or
target shooting. Such leftist babble was disingenuous, duplicitous and
an outrage to defend the indefensible.
The fact is the Second Amendment was specifically intended to provide
American citizens with the tools necessary to rise up and overthrow an
abusive government. It was written by men who had just done that very
thing.
The first three battles of the American Revolution were not about
taxation, or representation, or even the list of grievances delineated
in the Declaration of Independence....the first three battles of the
War for Independence were over gun control. [read: Lexington 1775]
When Captain Parker faced off the British on the Green in Lexington it
was to prevent the British from confiscating "power and ball".
"There should be no doubt," Gottlieb concluded, "that those who have
campaigned for restrictive gun laws or outright gun bans have been
working to rob Americans of a constitutional right, a civil right. The
time has come for America to re-examine every restrictive federal and
state firearms statute, every local ordinance and every regulation,
and start erasing those that were written solely to infringe on the
rights of individual, law-abiding citizens to peaceably own firearms
of their choice, without ever again having to explain why." Despite
his righteous indignation, I hope Alan isn't holding his breath.
It was again Thomas Jefferson who said, "The strongest reason for
people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort,
to protect themsleves against tyranny in government."
The entire report is available at
formatting link

© 2004 Geoff Metcalf - All Rights Reserved
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best
wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible,
low-stress, nonaddictive, gender-neutral celebration of the
winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable
traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or the
secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious
or secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their
choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
May you have a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and
medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the
generally accepted calendar year 2005, but not without due
respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose
contributions to society have helped make the world great, and
without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability,
religious faith, political belief, choice of computer platform,
or sexual preference of the wishee.
By accepting this greeting you are accepting these terms. This
greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely
transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It
implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of
the wishes for herself or himself or others, is void where
prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of
the wisher. This wish is under warranty to perform as expected
within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one
year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting,
whichever comes first, and the warranty is limited to
replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole
discretion of the wisher.
Reply to
Gunner
Loading thread data ...
"Gunner"
cuts and pastes more gun erotic lies
second adment blah, blah
you are not a miltia, pinhead
CBII
@4ax.com...
Reply to
cueboy2
Chuckle..denial is not a river in Egypt. I suggest you check with the Department of Justice as to who is the liar.
formatting link
It would appear that you are. And a moronic buffoon to boot.
Take your time and when you get to the conclusion part, just above all the foot notes...you will find this:
"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.
Please let us know if we may provide further assistance.
Steven G. Bradbury Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C. Kevin Marshall Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General"
Btw..those are United States Deputy Attorney Generals.
Read it and weep, you scum sucking fuckwit.
Bwuaahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Gunner
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, nonaddictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or the secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious or secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
May you have a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2005, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make the world great, and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, political belief, choice of computer platform, or sexual preference of the wishee.
By accepting this greeting you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is under warranty to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and the warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.
Reply to
Gunner
For the record, my amateur opinion is that Tribe has it about right, and I don't disagree with the thrust of what's being said here.
But the writer appears fairly ignorant of Constitutional law and could mislead other pe> Guess what? The Second Amendment, ("A well regulated Militia being
It would take a Supreme Court reversal of the current state of case law to do that. So far, of 12 Circuit Courts of Appeals, exactly one has found for an individual right. There's quite a hill to climb, if not to reverse the situation with federal law, then to incorporate an individual right under the 14th and make it a general right.
Not under law.
The DOJ is the prosecutorial department of the Executive branch of government. The legislative branch writes laws, and the judicial branch decides their constitutionality. A brief or opinion by the DOJ has no legal standing but it does carry some interesting legal weight. If it suggests what they're going to prosecute, then we could be in for some interesting lawsuits against DOJ.
However, it probably won't happen. DOJ is bound to prosecute cases under the law.
John Ashcroft is the one who decides when DOJ briefs, opinions, or public announcements are released. If there was a "someone," it was him and him alone.
No, it's the law of the land in the territories of 11 of the 12 Circuit Courts of Appeals.
That's probably because it's not an "epiphany." It's an elaboration of a position that DOJ announced several years ago. It isn't news and it has no legal consequence.
Not bad for a "liberal darling," eh?
That's probably right on the mark. The right for individuals to be armed with their own weapons for the common defense seems unassailable under the historical record. I don't think the USSC would have much trouble establishing an individual right that should not be infringed by the federal government.
The "uncertain scope" refers to the individual right as one that the states can't infringe. Legally and historically, that's a tougher go -- not impossible, but it would require reversing a lot of precedent. It's also a little flakier in the historical record, since it wasn't mentioned at all in the debates on the 2nd in the First Congress. The record in support of other reasons for an individual RKBA amounts to a collection of editorials that have little to do with the laws as they were enacted, under the Amendment as it was written.
This is mostly a myth. The 2nd Amendment talks about "the security of a free state," and there is much more commentary from the time about the need for a militia to secure the common defense, and to defend against rebellion, than anything else -- including both self-defense and overthrowing the government. Jefferson's comments about defending against a tyrannical government made good slogans, but that was not the basis of the debates, nor did it relate at all to the legal writings of the times. The Militia Act of 1792 defined the purpose of the militia: to defend against foreign states, Indians, and domestic insurrections. It also specified that each male citizen was to have on hand 20 balls of appropriate caliber and two spare flints.
This is one of the primary gun-nutz' fantasies. The dominant idea behind a militia was to defend the government, not to overthrow it. A week's worth of checking the historical record makes this abundantly clear.
-- Ed Huntress
Reply to
Ed Huntress
If it is a God-given right, then the Second Amendment is irrelevant, as is the opinion of the DOJ.
"God given" and "empirical fact", used together, form an oxymoron.
If you parse the sentence, it says "...it is an empirical fact that [it] is a FACT". This is a mere tautology.
Gunner is easily impressed.
Reply to
EskWIRED
Did you read the brief? Most interesting.
Gunner
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, nonaddictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or the secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious or secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
May you have a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2005, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make the world great, and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, political belief, choice of computer platform, or sexual preference of the wishee.
By accepting this greeting you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is under warranty to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and the warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.
Reply to
Gunner
Nothing of importance, or, the norm for him.
Reply to
Worry Not
Yep..particularly when it comes to long held findings on the Constitution being once again upheld. Dispite the lefties denial.
Read the brief. Its rather well done and even you can understand it.
Gunner
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, nonaddictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or the secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious or secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
May you have a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2005, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make the world great, and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, political belief, choice of computer platform, or sexual preference of the wishee.
By accepting this greeting you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is under warranty to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and the warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.
Reply to
Gunner
Translation, nice try gunner but you still don't have the brass ring yet.
Jim
Reply to
jim rozen
Maybe I'll do so. My guess is that the brief doesn't contain the absurd twists of logic found in the article you posted. The author needs an editor. And some writing lessons. And some logic lessons.
And just so that there is no mistake, IMO the Second Amendment says clearly that government shall not prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms by citizens. And my guess is that it was included as a means of ensuring the possibility of armed revolt by the populace.
Reply to
EskWIRED
Yeah, I read it. I did not, however, check out the 437 citations for veracity or substance.
It's similar to the 5th Circuit Court's decision in "Emerson," only written more as a point of view than as a balanced decision (not that the 5th Circuit Court wrote a particularly balanced decision, either, but it had the appearance of one).
There are a couple of interesting points that readers may be interested in. Within the introduction, the DOJ authors say this about the current status of the law:
"In sum, the question of who possesses the right secured by the Second Amendment remains open and unsettled in the courts and among scholars."
The argument itself is an extraordinary piece of work -- imagine how many of our tax dollars it took to research and write it. If someone were going to critique it in full it would cost, in this writer's opinion, at least $200,000. So I wouldn't attempt it. Certainly not for a NG discussion, and not when I have important work ahead of me in analyzing the stats of the Yankees' new pitching acquisitions. d8-)
However, to the point I made above and which you seem to question, the argument does contain more than a few slight-of-hand tricks, in lawyerly fashion, for example in trying to reach for an anti-government basis for the militia. I thought it was a bit odd that they quoted the words of state constitutions that addressed the issue, right in the middle of saying it wasn't for the purpose of defending the state:
(Pa) -- That the right of the citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned.
(NC) -- That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State...
(Vt) -- "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State"...
(Ma) -- The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.
The DOJ polemic answers this (speaking specifically of NC) by saying, "It would not have made sense, in the context of a state constitution, for a "right" of "the people" to protect only the prerogatives of the State."
One gets the feeling that they're instructing the Founders and the various state legislators on what they actually meant, or ought to have meant. Perhaps the DOJ has a better feel for that then the people who wrote the various constitutions.
And one can be reasonably sure they wouldn't have made this argument if they were trying to defend a right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of the common defence, as Massachusetts put it. What the DOJ is doing here is building a case for an individual right that will slip under the fence of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, thus extending the right to individuals over the heads of the states. Thus, their selection of authorities.
If I had $200,000 or so to work on it and enough time to do it, analyzing this thing would be fun. But the issue we were talking about is addressed fairly well by the actual words contained in the 2nd Amendment and in the various state constitutional provisions listed above. There were sentiments and philosophical positions; and there were laws and constitutions as they were written. And the two were not always the same thing.
-- Ed Huntress
Reply to
Ed Huntress
try reading the constitution. the power to raise armies is granted congress in article one. also in article one is the power of the states to raise armies if congress consents (this is the national guard). to apply the 2nd admendment to either a state or federal government makes it redundant. also the term "the people" through out the constitution is used to refer to a group of individuals and is applied to the individuals.
if you read other works by our founding fathers it becomes clear the 2nd admendment is intended to serve 3 purposes. that is to give an individual the means to defend his person and property, to give citizens as a group the means necessary to repel invaders and finally to insure the power remains with the people and give them the means necessary to overthrow the government if it should decend into a tyrany.
any court that says otherwise is wrong and evidence our government is decending. if things keep going the 2nd admendment may prove necessary soon.
Cliff wrote:
Reply to
r payne
Of course. SOCTUS has not ruled recently on it, but as the brief indicated, it has ruled on it some 20 odd times in the past, all of which supported the individual rights interp.
As for scholars...snicker...no two will ever agree on this, least of all when so many of them are anti-gun.
Note Lawrance Tribe took a shitload of heat from his peers when he, the anti-gun liberal, took an honest look at the data and came to the conclusion, much to his self admitted disgust, that it is indeed a individual right. While I dont care for his politics, the fact he could look beyond his personal world view and come up with an honest rebuttle of his own bleeves is impressive.
Gunner
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, nonaddictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or the secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious or secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
May you have a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2005, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make the world great, and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, political belief, choice of computer platform, or sexual preference of the wishee.
By accepting this greeting you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is under warranty to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and the warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.
Reply to
Gunner
Ignorre the author of the op ed piece. Read the brief by the Department of Justice's lawyers.
Gunner
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, nonaddictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or the secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious or secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
May you have a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2005, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make the world great, and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, political belief, choice of computer platform, or sexual preference of the wishee.
By accepting this greeting you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is under warranty to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and the warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.
Reply to
Gunner
Please read the brief itself. Ignore the pontifications of Ed for a moment. Then get back to me after reviewing the brief.
Gunner
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, nonaddictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or the secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious or secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
May you have a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2005, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make the world great, and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, political belief, choice of computer platform, or sexual preference of the wishee.
By accepting this greeting you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is under warranty to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and the warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.
Reply to
Gunner
yet another liar - bought off by the gun lobby BTW- have you EVER had an orginal thought
CBII
Reply to
cueboy2
could you take your head out of Gummer's ass long enough to explain how you would have any clue about what is "normal" for me?
CBII
Reply to
cueboy2
You mean the one written by the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, his deputy, and *his* deputy -- none of whom has anything to say about Constitutional decisions? Yeah, I think I got it. It isn't that hard. And I happen to agree with it -- the conclusion, that is.
The conclusion is pretty modest for all 98 pages of gum-flapping that preceeded it. In fact, it looks like they're working awfully damned hard to get an incorporation decision, doesn't it?
What do you think, Tom? Could you come up with grounds for incorporation from the preferred authorities -- primarily from the debates over the Bill of Rights from the First Congress? How about Tucker's statements in Congress in the debates over the First, and the wording of the First? How about all of the proposals for wording of the Second that wound up being voted down? Why do you suppose they took them out?
-- Ed Huntress
Reply to
Ed Huntress
I don't know Ed. It seems to me that most of the citizens of the US seem to view their government as a combination Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, and Tooth Fairy, all rolled into one. At least that's what comes across whenever a second amendment thing crosses this NG.
Honestly I'm waiting for the link from Gunner that says "News Flash, Second Amendment Vindicated as Individual Right" and inside of the link is yet *another* long rambling discourse, this time penned by the third assistant dog catcher of Peoria.
And there will be some poor person who replies to you, "what, don't you understand that this is an IMPORTANT BRIEF and it means WE WON, because it was written by an AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT?"
Jim
Reply to
jim rozen
I read the brief. Did you see who the author is?
Please come back to me when the author is named Rehnquist, etc. and I will be happy to be overjoyed with you. Until then, keep on trying for that ring.
Jim
Reply to
jim rozen

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.