PDA

View Full Version : Feds break it down...


Bad Voodoo
04-12-2007, 8:38 PM
Feds break down the 2A (2004):

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

Guess they have understood, at least for the last couple years, that they may not have an argument if this thing goes all the way to the top (although I'm sure they'll still try!). It amazes me that the 2A, all 27 words of it, takes the DOJ 106 pages to correctly decipher. Incredible. Legislators in CA, IL, MA, et al., should be paying very close attention to what's coming. It's just not coming soon enough for my taste.

The Second Amendment’s recognition of a “right” that belongs to “the people” indicates a right of individuals.

The word “right,” standing by itself in the Constitution, is clear. Although in some contexts entities other than individuals are said to have “rights,” the Constitution itself does not use the word “right” in this manner. Setting aside the Second Amendment, not once does the Constitution confer a “right” on any governmental entity, state or federal. Nor does it confer any “right” restricted to persons in governmental service, such as members of an organized military unit.

In addition to its various references to a “right of the people” discussed below, the Constitution in the Sixth Amendment secures “right[s]” to an
accused person, and in the Seventh secures a person’s “right” to a jury trial in civil cases. By contrast, governments, whether state or federal, have in the Constitution only “powers” or “authority.” It would be a marked anomaly if “right” in the Second Amendment departed from such uniform usage throughout the Constitution.

In any event, any possible doubt vanishes when “right” is conjoined with “the people,” as it is in the Second Amendment. Such a right belongs to individuals: The “people” are not a “State,” nor are they identical with the “Militia.” Indeed, the Second Amendment distinctly uses all three of these terms, yet it secures a “right” only to the “people.” The phrase “the right of the people” appears two other times in the Bill of Rights, and both times refers to a personal right, which belongs to individuals.

Apologies in advance if this is "old hat."

-voodoo

Matt C
04-12-2007, 8:55 PM
Apologies in advance if this is "old hat."

-voodoo


Apology accepted.

SemiAutoSam
04-12-2007, 8:57 PM
Apologies not required this kind of thing cannot be posted too much I for one have never seen this website so spread it far and wide.

Heck I may even send it to Sarah Brady herself that old windbag maybe it will give her and her old man a coronary.

Thanks for posting this.

Feds break down the 2A (2004):

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

Guess they have understood, at least for the last couple years, that they may not have an argument if this thing goes all the way to the top (although I'm sure they'll still try!). It amazes me that the 2A, all 27 words of it, takes the DOJ 106 pages to correctly decipher. Incredible. Legislators in CA, IL, MA, et al., should be paying very close attention to what's coming. It's just not coming soon enough for my taste.



Apologies in advance if this is "old hat."

-voodoo

Technical Ted
04-12-2007, 9:00 PM
Apologies in advance if this is "old hat."
Been awhile since this has been posted.

This dates back to the US DOJ under Attorney General John Ashcroft. His successor and current Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, does not share the same views regarding the 2A.

jdberger
04-12-2007, 9:02 PM
Wasn't that Ashcroft?

Bad Voodoo
04-12-2007, 9:07 PM
Been awhile since this has been posted.

This dates back to the US DOJ under Attorney General John Ashcroft. His successor and current Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, does not share the same views regarding the 2A.

You're right. Each "Czar" that's appointed to that position probably tears up the opinions from the previous one. Sad, isn't it?

Whatever. This needs to be heard in the next two years, otherwise all the baby steps that have been taken are going to be chased right back where they came from - Jefferson's grave.

-voodoo

Technical Ted
04-12-2007, 9:11 PM
You're right. Each "Czar" that's appointed to that position probably tears up the opinions from the previous one. Sad, isn't it?
It's weird and confusing because the paper is still up and Gonzales minions haven't issued a differing opinion.

To me it shows that it's such a hot potato issue that they don't want to remove it for fear that it will send the wrong signal: The gun control advocates will say: "See the current administration agrees with us" and the 2A advocates will say: "See the current administration agrees with the gun control advocates".

1911_Mitch
04-12-2007, 9:17 PM
Yipee! :)

Hopefully we can move forward with this position.

Its about time.

Technical Ted
04-12-2007, 9:22 PM
Yipee! :)

Hopefully we can move forward with this position.

Its about time.
Look at the date, August 24, 2004. A few weeks before the sunset of the Federal "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994". The effort to extend that Assault Weapons ban failed.

hoffmang
04-12-2007, 9:26 PM
I'm curious - where is the evidence that Gonzales doesn't support the US DOJ opinion?

-Gene

Cato
04-12-2007, 9:36 PM
I have always had legalistic tendencies. The 2A clearly states that the individual has a right to ANY weapon: machine gun, grenade, etc. Now I believe mine is an unbiased opinion despite being a gun owner whose 2A rights are infringed by this state. Anti gun folks have worked EXTREMELY hard with their sophistry to twist the words of the 2A. Now why dont they just show some integrety and try to repeal the 2A?

Technical Ted
04-12-2007, 9:54 PM
I'm curious - where is the evidence that Gonzales doesn't support the US DOJ opinion?
You got me. All I know about it is from hearsay. One may have to dig deep to find any contradiction to the Ashcroft opinion, but apparently Gonzales supports gun contol. Some would say that is infringement on the RKBA.

A quick and dirty reference that Gonzales supports gun control, haven't had to the time to chase down the transcript of the actual testimony.
http://www.gunowners.org/a012505.htm

hoffmang
04-12-2007, 10:18 PM
Hrm.. Supporting the president isn't fully renouncing the DOJ opinion. I realize that its not pro-2A, but...

I'm purely just curious.

-Gene

CalNRA
04-12-2007, 10:20 PM
Hrm.. Supporting the president isn't fully renouncing the DOJ opinion. I realize that its not pro-2A, but...

I'm purely just curious.

-Gene

compare that with Clinton era's DOJ which flat out said "we don't believe the 2nd Amendment applies to the individuals", there is a HUGE difference.

cartman
04-13-2007, 11:39 AM
Isnt gonzo the same one who said habeas corpus isn't a guerenteed right in the bor.

DrjonesUSA
04-14-2007, 8:42 AM
Apologies not required this kind of thing cannot be posted too much I for one have never seen this website so spread it far and wide.


Thanks for posting this.


Ditto.