• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

DOJ affirms the 2nd ammendment as an individual right

jcueckert13

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Location
edgewood nm
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
AFFIRMS THE SECOND AMENDMENT
AS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT

"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."

The clearest and most comprehensive statement ever made by the Executive Branch on the true meaning of the Second Amendment was recently released by the Justice Department. In a memorandum posted on their web site December 17, 2004, the Justice Department concludes without reservation 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 persons serving in organized militia units."

The opinion does not address the constitutionality of particular laws placing limits on the possession, carrying, or use of firearms. It does note that certain classes of people (felons, those addicted to drugs or alcohol) can be prohibited from owning firearms and that certain types of firearms can be regulated.

This memo, for its excellent research, adds much to Second Amendment scholarship. But its major impact will be on the courts — and the Department itself.

The memo calls current judicial opinions an "unsettled legal landscape," where no theory holds firm. Stephen Halbrook, respected Second Amendment litigator and historian, says of the memorandum, "It is a highly credible message to the courts, for it exhibits a depth of understanding about the Second Amendment that few jurists have ever attained, and should be persuasive in future decisions."

The Department of Justice defends federal firearms laws. When it comes to interpreting the Second Amendment, it has flip-flopped. According to Mr. Halbrook, this monumental opinion "promises to keep the Department on the high road, for it is irrefutable in its analysis and its history." For gun owners now, and in the future, this is great news.

its about time​
 

Youve Got To Be Kidding!

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
319
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Bush and Co. will turn that around. They are already talking about it. The (severly needing a ball bat upside the head) S.C.J. are talking about it being a federal standard and something the states can revoke if they would like. Wich will happen. One state at a time.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
That is great that the DoJ is doing the Supreme Court's job of assert an individual right, it is great.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
ShamMol said:
That is great that the DoJ is doing the Supreme Court's job of assert an individual right, it is great.
The DoJ is the first line of interpretation. It doesn't reach the Supremes (or any other court) until someone with standing makes the case that the DoJ interpretted things incorrectly.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
See, I don't see them as interpretting anything. They can make policy up the wazoo, but they don't interpret the constitution, that is what judges are for. It goes, for me, District, Appellate, Supreme, Final Judgement (you know the thing that will never happen).

The DoJ can assert in court that it is my right, they can't just uniformally declare it.
 

acm2117

New member
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Unfortunately the DOJ legal opinion is not binding precedent for any of the courts to follow. Nor will it likely affect the overzealous ATF in their relentless persecution of gun owners.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Exactly, they can say anything they want, but then they have to still hold it up before a justice of the peace when it comes time to prove themselves right.
 
Top Bottom