This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
Thank you,
NRA - for bringing us THIS Information!
The NRA's providing this is a very big
help. May we all use this wisely and in all the right places... NRA-ILA SPECIAL FAX ALERT 9/5/00
CLINTON-GORE-RENO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CONFIRMS What follows on the next page of this Special
FAX Alert is the text of a letter from the Department of Justice to an NRA
member. The The letter confirms what we reported in a
previous FAX Alert (No.24, June 16) -- that the Clinton-Gore-Reno Justice
Department stands by its contention that law-abiding individual Americans have
NO Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
This letter should serve as a stark reminder to
all gun owners why this year�s elections are so critical to the future of the
Second Amendment.
On Friday, you will receive a "Grassroots
Election Action FAX Alert" that will outline the steps you must take in the
coming weeks and months to ensure we can replace elected officials and
government-appointed bureaucrats who view the Second Amendment with such
hostility.
We hope you will share this letter with your
family, friends, and fellow firearm owners and use it to ensure that all of our
supporters are fully engaged in this year�s elections.
U. S. Department of Justice
Office of the Solicitor General
Solicitor General Washington, D.C. 20530
August 22, 2000
Dear Mr. (Name Deleted):
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 �that it could �take guns away
from the public,� and �restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns
from all people.�� 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 government�s position �that the Second Amendment of
the Constitution does not extend to the people as an individual right.�
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 �obvious purpose� of the
Second Amendment was to effectuate Congress�s power to �call forth the
Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,� not to provide an individual right
to bear arms contrary to federal law�); Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916,
921 (1st Cir. 1942) (�The right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred
upon the people by the federal constitution.�); Eckert v. City of
Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610 (3rd Cir. 1973) (�It must be remembered that the
right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the United States
Constitution.�); 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) (�We conclude
that the defendant has no private right to keep and bear arms under the Second
Amendment.�); Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144, 149 (6th Cir. 1971)
(�There can be no serious claim to any express 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 Justice�s 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) (�With respect to the second
amendment, the Supreme Court of the United States long ago made it clear that
the amendment did not guarantee to any individuals the right to bear arms.�).
I hope this answers your question. Thank you
again for writing.
Yours sincerely,
Seth P. Waxman |
||||||||