OT- 2nd Amendment IS an individual right-Officially

"Gunner"

cuts and pastes more gun erotic lies

second adment blah, blah

you are not a miltia, pinhead

CBII

@4ax.com...

Chuckle..denial is not a river in Egypt. I suggest you check with the Department of Justice as to who is the liar.

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 f****it.

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.

For the record, my amateur > 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

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

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.

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.

Nothing of importance, or, the norm for him.

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.

Translation, nice try gunner but you still don't have the brass ring yet.

Jim

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.

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

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 wr> >

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.

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.

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.

yet another liar - bought off by the gun lobby BTW- have you EVER had an orginal thought

CBII

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

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

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

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