Justice Dept (DOJ) Concludes 2nd Amendment "Secures individual right"

[jtb33]

This should probably go in the "breaking news" section, but it would probably be relegated to the gungeon quickly, so I will save the mods some work and just post it here.

First off, the entire report is available at http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

NEWS RELEASE
JUSTICE DEPT. CONCLUDES 2ND AMENDMENT 'SECURES INDIVIDUAL RIGHT'

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) today hailed a report from the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel that concludes the Second Amendment "secures an individual right to keep and bear arms."

Though dated Aug. 24, the 93-page document was just released. It details the exhaustive research by Assistant Attorneys General Steven G. Bradbury, Howard C. Nielson, Jr. and C. Kevin Marshall who studied the history of legislation and court cases to reach their conclusion. They note that, "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."

"This report confirms what the gun rights community has known to be true for many years," said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. "The right to keep and bear arms is a right to be enjoyed and exercised by every citizen. 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."

"For too long," stated CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron, "enemies of individual liberty have lied to the American public. They've tried to convince us that we have no right of self-defense, no right to own firearms as personal property, and no right to have the means to resist tyranny, which is what the Founding Fathers specifically had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment. There is nothing in the Amendment about 'sporting purposes,' duck hunting or target shooting, and the anti-gunners know it. Now all Americans know it, too."

"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."

[mcscajun]

1. Well, the timing is interesting...'cause we're the ones who'll need 'em

when the government ceases to protect us and becomes the threat instead.

I wonder if they've thought of that?

[The Doctor.]

2. I wish it were that simple...

Aside from my deep concern about all the absolute Morons with firearms, This 'Right to Bear arms' has never been guaranteed.

If I decided to wear a sabre in public, I would be harassed by police, have my sabre confiscated, possibly thrown in jail and then have to fight to get my property back.

Right to bear arms my ass.

This whole 'right to bear arms' crowd works so fervently at making sure we can carry deadly firearms that if I were to be caught with a simple stungun, I would go to jail.

WTF?

These people are hypocrites - they are not out to protect our 'right to bear arms' - they are out to make sure they can tote hand-cannons.

I'm not against the carrying of handguns, but too many complete idiots have them... and I can't even carry a sword.

[slackmaster]

6. It's a shame your state treats its citizens like that

If I decided to wear a sabre in public, I would be harassed by police, have my sabre confiscated, possibly thrown in jail and then have to fight to get my property back.

That would not happen in California. We are allowed to carry swords here. Our restrictions on edged weapons are pretty reasonable IMO, except for a few places that have municipal ordinances.

[The Doctor.]

8. Can you carry them concealed?

I never like to arouse attention.

[slackmaster]

10. Not concealed

California Penal Code sections 643k and 12020 define certain weapons as prohibited to carry concealed - Basically any fixed-blade knife with a double edge (i.e. dirk or dagger), or a blade over a certain length cannot be carried concealed.

Switchblades with blades over 2 inches cannot be carried at all, but other types of folding knives can be carried concealed (and folded) regardless of blade length. That makes a folding knife an excellent choice for a personal defensive weapon in California. They're handy for opening boxes, stripping wires, and other common chores too. :D

If you want to carry a sheath knife, sword, etc. it has to be visible and sheathed.

[The Doctor.]

16. Indeed - I carry my Spyderco Citizen pocket folder...

Only once was I even questioned about it.

It's a mean looking knife.

[Buster43]

11. Well,

then move to AZ or NM. Open carry of weapons is allowed. The state code for NM regarding firearms is only a page and a half long.

"If I decided to wear a sabre in public, I would be harassed by police, have my sabre confiscated, possibly thrown in jail and then have to fight to get my property back."

[madrchsod]

3. more meaningless bullshit from the gun lobby

sorry that statement means nothing untill someone takes it to the supreme court. the court has never ruled on the second and untill it does,nothing will be settled. oh by the way,i was a gun owner when i lived in the country. i had three rifles but gave them away when i moved into town.

[gumby]

4. A One Party State

always gets the answers they want.

[lcordero]

5. I'm calling bullshit

The DOJ is faking the funk. If it had a set of balls between it's legs it would be pushing to repeal the GCA of 1968 and the NFA of 1934.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. Oh, great. Just in time for the next civil war.

:eyes:

[iverglas]

9. "Dept of Justice (DOJ) speaks for liberals and Democrats"

Oh wait. That can't be right.

[Squatch]

12. Too bad it's not their place to conclude that...

It's the place of the Supreme Court to interpret the law.

[slackmaster]

14. As advocate for the government they are entitled to have an opinion

Just as anyone else is. But I think it's inappropriate for them to make such a blanket statement on an issue that is not even the subject of litigation for them.

[Wickerman]

13. Activist DOJ

:wtf:

[jody]

15. Conclusion says the Second Amendment secures an individual RKBA

QUOTE
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.
UNQUOTE

[Lefty48197]

17. SWEET! Ashcroft and Nugent FINALLY agree on something

Wow! Weren't you beginning to think it would NEVER happen?