texashuntingforum.com logo
Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
cpen13, Huntinkid, garey, SteveG, justin77
72053 Registered Users
Top Posters(All Time)
dogcatcher 110,796
bill oxner 91,416
SnakeWrangler 65,526
stxranchman 60,296
Gravytrain 46,950
RKHarm24 44,585
rifleman 44,461
Stub 43,921
Forum Statistics
Forums46
Topics537,993
Posts9,731,532
Members87,053
Most Online25,604
Feb 12th, 2024
Print Thread
US Justice Dept. finding #8832553 04/12/23 03:19 PM
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,331
D
Dave Scott Offline OP
Pro Tracker
OP Offline
Pro Tracker
D
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,331
V. 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.
STEVEN G. BRADBURY
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
HOWARD C. NIELSON, JR.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
C. KEVIN MARSHALL
Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel

COMPLETE TEXT:
https://www.justice.gov/file/18831/download

THOUGHT SOME OF YOU MIGHT LIKE THIS

Re: US Justice Dept. finding [Re: Dave Scott] #8832770 04/12/23 09:04 PM
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 29,130
T
TXHOGSLAYER Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
T
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 29,130
So what does that mean?




LETS GO BRANDON
Re: US Justice Dept. finding [Re: TXHOGSLAYER] #8832808 04/12/23 10:07 PM
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,239
B
blkt2 Offline
Veteran Tracker
Offline
Veteran Tracker
B
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,239
Originally Posted by TXHOGSLAYER
So what does that mean?


It means that they are going to fire the guys that dared sign their name to that.

Re: US Justice Dept. finding [Re: TXHOGSLAYER] #8832933 04/13/23 02:11 AM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41,173
J.G. Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41,173
Originally Posted by TXHOGSLAYER
So what does that mean?


It means the second amendment shall not be infringed.


[Linked Image]
800 Yard Steel Range
Precision Rifle Instruction
Memberships and Classes Available
Re: US Justice Dept. finding [Re: Dave Scott] #8833179 04/13/23 02:28 PM
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,331
D
Dave Scott Offline OP
Pro Tracker
OP Offline
Pro Tracker
D
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,331
Well.....I was sort of surprised that the U.S. Justice Department didn't try to conclude that the Second Amendment only meant that a State could have a "National Guard". They were pretty fair in their analysis that historically militias had individuals report with their privately owned firearms and therefore that situation could not exist unless private firearm ownership was recognized. This therefore meant some level of a private right had to exist in order for a militia (In the historical American sense) to exist but the boundaries of the right were somewhat indefinite.
BUT THE THING IS....You have Al Gore running for President and others with top school law degrees saying "They don't have a problem with someone having a shotgun to shoot birds", blah, blah while all the time the U.S. Justice department has concluded weapons suitable for service in a militia capacity are what is the focus of the Second Amendment. These folks use the "National Guard" argument and since they are all pretty smart guys, they know darn well they are lying and they are counting on the ignorance of the general population to accept their lies. They also noted that "People" means "People" and if everyone knows what that means, then nothing further need be said. The idea "People" means a State Government is ridiculous, also that the amendment does not say "The right of the militia to keep and bear arms" which a lot of anti-gun people argue, the right extends to "People" and we all know what "people" means. The right of the People to peacefully assemble, vote, etc. People means People.
MY OWN THOUGHTS......In 1903 the Federal Government created an act that established the National Guard and ceased any requirements at State Level to maintain an active militia. TO ME this is a ONE WAY STREET. Telling the States you no longer need to maintain an active militia of the general population with so many days of training, etc. is NOT THE SAME as telling the states you no longer can have an active militia. James Madison clearly wrote the people have a right to their militia. Therefore IN MY OPINION if a state wanted to go back to an active militia- they can. The federal government couldn't stop it.
Why would a State want to do that? Well, protect the borders from foreign invasion (It doesn't say military invasion, just foreign invasion, see that the laws are faithfully executed -guards at public schools, there are all kinds of beneficial uses of a militia. It seems to me.

Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

© 2004-2024 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3