[CTRL] No Right to Bare Arms (Supreme Court)
C. 20530 August 22, 2000 Dear Mr. : Thank you for your letter dated August 11, 2000, in which you question certain statements you understand to have been made by an attorney for the United States during oral argument before the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson. Your letter states that the attorney indicated that the United States believes ³that it could take guns away from the public,¹ and restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people.¹² You ask whether the response of the attorney for the United States accurately reflects the position of the Department of Justice and whether it is indeed the government¹s position ³that the Second Amendment of the Constitution does not extend to the people as an individual right.² I was not present at the oral argument you reference, and I have been informed that the court of appeals will not make the transcript or tape of the argument available to the public (or to the Department of Justice). I am informed, however, that counsel for the United States in United States v. Emerson, Assistant United States Attorney William Mateja, did indeed take the position that the Second Amendment does not extend an individual right to keep and bear arms. That position is consistent with the view of the Amendment taken both by the federal appellate courts and successive Administrations. More specifically, the Supreme Court and eight United States Courts of Appeals have considered the scope of the Second Amendment and have uniformly rejected arguments that it extends firearms rights to individuals independent of the collective need to ensure a well-regulated militia. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (the ³obvious purpose² of the Second Amendment was to effectuate Congress¹s power to ³call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,² not to provide an individual right to bear arms contrary to federal law²); Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 921 (1st Cir. 1942) (³The right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the people by the federal constitution.²); Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610 (3rd Cir. 1973) (³It must be remembered that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the United States Constitution.²); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir. 1974); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106-07 (6th Cir. 1976) (³We conclude that the defendant has no private right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.²); Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144, 149 (6th Cir. 1971) (³There can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.²); Ouilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 270 (7th Cir. 1982) (³The right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second amendment.²); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1019 (8th Cir. 1992) (³The rule emerging from Miller is that, absent a showing that the possession of a certain weapon has some relationship to the preservation or efficiency of regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess the weapon.²); United States v. Tomlin, 454 F.2d 176 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Swinton, 521 F.2d 1255, 1259 (10th Cir. 1975) (³There is no absolute constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.²). Thus, rather than holding that the Second Amendment protects individual firearms rights, these courts have uniformly held that it precludes only federal attempts to disarm, abolish, or disable the ability to call up the organized state militia. Similarly, almost three decades ago, the Department of Justice¹s Office of Legal Counsel explained: The language of the Second Amendment, when it was first presented to the Congress, makes it quite clear that it was the right of the States to maintain a militia that was being preserved, not the rights of an individual to own a gun [and] [there is no indication that Congress altered its purpose to protect state militias, not individual gun ownership [upon consideration of the Amendment] . . . . Courts have viewed the Second Amendment as limited to the militia and have held that it does not create a personal right to own or use a gun . . . . In light of the constitutional history, it must be considered as settled that there is no personal constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, to own or to use a gun. Letter from Mary C. Lawton, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, to George Bush, Chairman, Republican National Committee (July 19, 1973) (citing, inter alia, Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), and United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)). See also, e.g., Federal Firearms Act, Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate 41 (1965) (Statement of Attorney General Katzenbach) (³With respect to the second amendment, the Supreme Court of the United States long ago made it clear
Re: [CTRL] No Right to Bare Arms (Supreme Court)
It's amazing what a little redaction can do, so as to misconstrue and twist the argument in one's favor. If you read any of these cases cited here, in there entirety and pay particular attention to the words before and after the portions cited and check the citations within those cases, it becomes even more clear and blatent that the second amendement is an INDIVIDUAL right, and that this right as established by the court in Presser vs Illinois(1886) and Cases vs US(1942) and Eckert vs City of Philadelphia (1973). My attitude is Mr. Waxman come and get it yourself I need the practice. "live free or die". On 7 Sep 00, at 17:11, Donald Park wrote: C. 20530 August 22, 2000 Dear Mr. : Thank you for your letter dated August 11, 2000, in which you question certain statements you understand to have been made by an attorney for the United States during oral argument before the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson. Your letter states that the attorney indicated that the United States believes ³that it could take guns away from the public,¹ and restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people.¹² You ask whether the response of the attorney for the United States accurately reflects the position of the Department of Justice and whether it is indeed the government¹s position ³that the Second Amendment of the Constitution does not extend to the people as an individual right.² I was not present at the oral argument you reference, and I have been informed that the court of appeals will not make the transcript or tape of the argument available to the public (or to the Department of Justice). I am informed, however, that counsel for the United States in United States v. Emerson, Assistant United States Attorney William Mateja, did indeed take the position that the Second Amendment does not extend an individual right to keep and bear arms. That position is consistent with the view of the Amendment taken both by the federal appellate courts and successive Administrations. More specifically, the Supreme Court and eight United States Courts of Appeals have considered the scope of the Second Amendment and have uniformly rejected arguments that it extends firearms rights to individuals independent of the collective need to ensure a well-regulated militia. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (the ³obvious purpose² of the Second Amendment was to effectuate Congress¹s power to ³call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,² not to provide an individual right to bear arms contrary to federal law²); Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 921 (1st Cir. 1942) (³The right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the people by the federal constitution.²); Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610 (3rd Cir. 1973) (³It must be remembered that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the United States Constitution.²); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir. 1974); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106-07 (6th Cir. 1976) (³We conclude that the defendant has no private right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.²); Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144, 149 (6th Cir. 1971) (³There can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.²); Ouilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 270 (7th Cir. 1982) (³The right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second amendment.²); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1019 (8th Cir. 1992) (³The rule emerging from Miller is that, absent a showing that the possession of a certain weapon has some relationship to the preservation or efficiency of regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess the weapon.²); United States v. Tomlin, 454 F.2d 176 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Swinton, 521 F.2d 1255, 1259 (10th Cir. 1975) (³There is no absolute constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.²). Thus, rather than holding that the Second Amendment protects individual firearms rights, these courts have uniformly held that it precludes only federal attempts to disarm, abolish, or disable the ability to call up the organized state militia. Similarly, almost three decades ago, the Department of Justice¹s Office of Legal Counsel explained: The language of the Second Amendment, when it was first presented to the Congress, makes it quite clear that it was the right of the States to maintain a militia that was being preserved, not the rights of an individual to own a gun [and] [there is no indication that Congress altered its purpose to protect state militias, not individual gun ownership [upon consideration of the Amendment] . . . . Courts have viewed the Second Amendment as limited to the militia and have held that it does not create a personal right to own or use a gun . . . . In light of the constitutional history, it must
Re: [CTRL] No Right to Bare Arms (Supreme Court)
On 7 Sep 00, at 18:34, Theodor Parada, MD wrote: The end of my statement should also say ; "that this right predates the US Constitution and bill of rights. It's amazing what a little redaction can do, so as to misconstrue and twist the argument in one's favor. If you read any of these cases cited here, in there entirety and pay particular attention to the words before and after the portions cited and check the citations within those cases, it becomes even more clear and blatent that the second amendement is an INDIVIDUAL right, and that this right as established by the court in Presser vs Illinois(1886) and Cases vs US(1942) and Eckert vs City of Philadelphia (1973). = Theodor S.Parada, MD [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key ID 0x537C4815 "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the heart's of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknownest in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic, so that, it, can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague." Marcus Tullius Cicero 42 BC A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html"Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/"ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] No Right to Bare Arms (Supreme Court)
[EMAIL PROTECTED],Internet writes: that the second amendement is an INDIVIDUAL right, and that this right as established by the court Aside from whether or not the courts or the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, the arms themselves guarantee the right to bear arms. Any attempt to seize them by force would spark a bloody conflict. History has demonstrated this repeatedly. A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html"Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/"ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
