The Right To Bear Arms Is Constitutional


“Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.”
— Justice Antonin Scalia, June 26, 2008

To read the entire opinion GO HERE

On August 24, 2004, the U. S. Justice Department confirmed “the right to bear arms” as an individual right . Since then, there has been a major effort to hide this from public view. It has been removed from the Justice Department’s web site and the links will take you to a page of Justice Department obfuscation, but you can read it here. All of the linked material is there, but you must scroll down the page to find it.WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT

If you can’t find time to read the entire memo, here at least is their conclusion:~ 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.

After this ruling was handed down, Chicago’s Mayor Daley had this to say: “An angry Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday called the Supreme Court’s overturning of the Washington D.C. handgun ban “a very frightening decision” and vowed to fight vigorously any challenges to Chicago’s ban.”

City officials expressed confidence the city would prevail in any court challenge, asserting, among other things, that the 2nd Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights restricts the federal government and does not apply to state and local governments. Wrong, wrong and wrong, for the following reasons:

“The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”

“No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
Murdoch v. Pennsylvania, U.S. Supreme Court, [319 U.S. 105 (1943).]

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
– Miranda v. Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court,[384 U.S. 436 (1966).]

“If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity”
– Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, U.S. Supreme Court,[394 U.S. 147 (1969).]

Thanks to Seattle Water Damage for there insight on this matter.

Stay tuned to following updates.