2nd - Individual right? - yes.

[P95Carry]

From NRA-ILA site update ......... the link goes to a load of page options ... takes a while to go thru. Looks good at a cursory read.

Of course this debate has been ongoing (and will be) probably ad infinitum!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

Second Amendment Secures Individual Right
A recent memorandum opinion for the U.S. Attorney General states: "For the
foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an
individual right to keep and to bear arms. [O]ur 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.
[T]he 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."

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

 

[Michigander]

This subject is currently being discussed at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=116323.

 

[Desertdog]

I haven't read very far into the documents but I really did like this part;

1. "To Keep . . . Arms."

In eighteenth-century English, an individual could "keep arms," and keep them for private purposes, unrelated to militia duty, just as he could keep any other private property, and the phrase was commonly used in this sense. For example, in Rex v. Gardner (K.B. 1738), a defendant charged with "keeping a gun" in violation of a 1706 English statute (which prohibited commoners from keeping specified objects or "other engines" for the destruction of game) argued that "though there are many things for the bare keeping of which a man may be convicted; yet they are only such as can only be used for destruction of the game, whereas a gun is necessary for defence of a house, or for a farmer to shoot crows." The court agreed, reasoning that "a gun differs from nets and dogs, which can only be kept for an ill purpose." (46) The Court of Common Pleas six years later treated Gardner as having "settled and determined" that "a man may keep a gun for the defence of his house and family," (47) and in 1752 the King's Bench reiterated that "a gun may be kept for the defence of a man's house, and for divers other lawful purposes." (48) The same usage appeared in an earlier prosecution of a man for "keeping of a gun" contrary to a statute that barred all but the wealthy from privately owning small handguns. (49)

 

[Michigander]

This is a duplicate thread.

Please see http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=116323

 

[M1911Owner]

Ahh!!!! Finally I get to say this!:

Sextuplicate thread!

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=116323

 

[P95Carry]

Michegander .. thx for the heads up on this .. I had not seen the other before.

I'll close this one up in that case.