US Justice Dept. finding

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

So what does that mean?

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

It means the second amendment shall not be infringed.

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.