The END of the 2nd Amendment debate

The following is a small gathering of information I have received from various sources. They are as I received them, with credit given to the writers when they stated who they where. If anyone wishes to clain "ownwership" of the untitled documents, please do so. Again, These works are not my own and are reproduced here for discussion only and not profit. IF my previous statement is "not up to D.P.'s posting disclaimer, then the MODS need to take this post down. Thanks. (AS YOU READ THROUGH THIS, PLEASE KEEP AN EYE OPEN FOR THE WORD "CORPORATION").

YOUR servant for freedom, Clay Carey

The definitive case has always been UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)(H.I.) where some gangsters were caught with a sawed-off shotgun but still quashed the charges in the trial court.
"A duly interposed demurrer alleged: The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, U.S.C.A.-'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' The District Court held that section 11 of the Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment." UNITED STATES v. MILLER (Supra)

The regime agents immediately took steps to get this judgment changed and removed the case directly to the Justices for a favorable decision. Jack Miller and his associate Frank Layton, being gangsters, did not participate and the case proceeded ex parte with the justices deciding, in effect, that Miller and Layton were not militia entitled to weapons of war and thereafter, by sophistry and subterfuge, mentally challenged people have believed that the second amendment article only permits militia to have armaments.
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." UNITED STATES v. MILLER (Supra)

The "no guns in schools" law, - some kid was charged with breaking this federal law. His lawyer challenged it saying, where does possession affect interstate commerce? The kid got off, and rightly so.

I would dare say that the same would hold for things like growing pot for personal use in your own back yard. The lesson learned above applies in MANY scenarios. Every aggressive move made by the establishment is done under “interstate commerce” clause.

Title 18 USC......... ......... .§ 921. Definitions
(a) As used in this chapter -- (1) The term "person" and the term "whoever" include any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.
(2) The term "interstate or foreign commerce" includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).

The DEPARTMENT of JUSTICE said "The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias."
August 24, 2004 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/printer_1363.shtml

Second Amendment Solidified
by Kurt Williamsen
May 6, 2005

The Department of Justice issued an extensive report that very clearly and
definitely shows that the Second Amendment was intended to protect an
individual right.

The U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel of the United States
was charged by the attorney general with addressing "the question whether the
right secured by the Second Amendment belongs only to the states, only to
persons serving in state-organized militia units like the National Guard, or to
individuals generally." The answer was definitive: "The Second Amendment
secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of states or a right
restricted to persons serving in militias."

The 102-page memorandum - made public on the Department of Justice's website on
December 17, 2004 - is perhaps the most exhaustive research ever done on this
contentious topic and includes a 42-page bibliography. Though the report does
not address the "constitutionality, under the Second Amendment, of any
particular limitations on owning, carrying, or using firearms," it does comment
on the fact that the "alternative views" of the Second Amendment are relatively
modern constructs.

Because in recent history, courts (and various heads of the Justice Department)
have reversed themselves in their interpretation of the Second Amendment, first
deciding that it was an individual right and then deciding that it was a
"collective" or state's right, and then back again, the Office of Legal Counsel
examined the "Amendment's text, as commonly understood at the time of its
adoption and interpreted in light of other provisions of the Constitution and
the Amendment's historical antecedents, to discern its proper meaning."

The memorandum analyzes in depth each key phrase of the Second Amendment: "right
of the people," "keep and bear arms," and "well regulated militia." Its
analysis finds that in no way could the Second Amendment be properly construed
to be anything other than a protection of an individual right.

In examining the word "right" as it is used in the Constitution, the Office of
Legal Counsel (OLC) concluded that a right was something reserved to
individuals. The OLC said that it is clear that whenever the word "right" is
used in the Constitution, it means an individual right, saying, "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,"
meaning that the Second Amendment "right" is not restricted to people in active
military service nor any other governmental service.

Also, when the word "right" is conjoined with the phrase "of the people," its
meaning is very distinct. This phrase is used two other times in the
Constitution, "and both times refers to a personal right, which belongs to
individuals. The First Amendment secures 'the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances,' and the
Fourth safeguards '[t]he right of people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.'"

The OLC also concluded that the first four amendments to the Constitution were
intended to be a subset of rights in the Bill of Rights, specifically
containing rights that were reserved to individuals to possess and use certain
property. This interpretation, according to the OLC - though somewhat erroneous
because the Bill of Rights does not grant rights, but restrains government from
violating them - makes sense in light of English law, from which the Founders
drew much of their inspiration, and in light of the various colonial laws at
the time.

English law allowed one to keep a gun "for the defence of his house and family."
And even though game laws in place in England at the time prevented most people
from using guns to hunt game, "in 1752 the Chief Justice of the King's Bench
reaffirmed that it was 'not to be imagined' that Parliament in [the Game Act]
had intended 'to disarm all the people of England.'" Also, Pennsylvania's
Declaration of Rights of September 1776, which reflects the language of the
other colonies' Declarations of Rights, makes clear that individuals have the
right to keep arms: "That people have a right to bear arms for the defence of
themselves and the state; and as standing armies . are dangerous to liberty,
they ought not be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict
subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

In analyzing the section of the Second Amendment that states, "A well regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," the OLC shows that
this wording was never intended to mean that only people in an organized
military group have the right to keep and bear arms. In making its case, the
OLC made several points: the term "militia" at the time of the Founding was
"the entire population of able-bodied male citizens"; a preface to an
amendment, of which this wording is an example, cannot logically be interpreted
to take away the right that is protected by the Amendment; and the Second
Amendment was meant to secure people in their right to possess guns for
individual self-defense.

In refuting the liberal-activist idea that the words "a well regulated Militia"
in the Second Amendment are meant to confine the "right" to people in the
regular military, the OLC notes that what this section of the amendment
actually does, if it's interpreted as it would have been in the days of the
Founding, is to justify the necessity of arming the populace-at-large. As
correctly interpreted, this section of the Second Amendment essentially states
that in order for states to be able to create a well-regulated militia, should
the necessity arise, and for the "free State" that it helps to secure, citizens
should be armed so that they become sufficiently familiar with firearms and
capable in their use.

At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, the word "militia" referred to
"all able-bodied men." A smaller group of better-trained professional soldiers
was called a "select militia" or a "select corps." In fact, because the militia
was considered to be all able-bodied men "two months after the Second Amendment
was officially ratified...," the Militia Act required white male citizens
between the ages of 18 and 45 to be "enrolled in the militia," and "each
enrolled citizen was required to provide his own arms - 'a good musket or
firelock' or 'a good rifle.'"

This view of the Second Amendment is further solidified when one realizes the
absurdity of trying to assert that the preface to the amendment takes away the
freedom protected by the amendment - and that is precisely what liberal
activists are asserting. A preface, as it was used in the Constitution, was
given to explain why the Founding Fathers thought that that particular portion
of the Constitution was necessary (in this case, the preface explains why the
individual right to own guns was necessary).

To clarify the point, the OLC points to Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the
Constitution, empowering Congress to "provide for organizing, arming, and
disciplining the Militia." When that article had reached its final form,
"George Mason proposed 'to preface' it with the phrase, 'And that the liberties
of the people may be better secured against the danger of' standing armies.
Madison spoke in favor, because the preface would 'discountenance' a peacetime
army while 'not restrain[ing] Congress from establishing'" one.

Finally, this interpretation of the Second Amendment becomes extremely grounded
when one grasps that the Second Amendment was largely instituted to allow
individuals to protect themselves: "Many early state constitutions, including
some written before the Founding . declared the Bill of Rights ratified,...
protected an individual right to 'bear arms' in 'defense of himself and the
State' or in 'defense of themselves and the State,' indicating that a person
might be said to 'bear arms' in self-defense."

In short, the modern twisted translation of the Second Amendment by liberal
activists doesn't even resemble the protection built into the Bill of Rights
whereby the government is restrained from violating our God-given right to
individual self-defense.

To view the full text of the Department of Justice memorandum, go to
www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm