View Single Post
Old June 23, 2012, 06:21 PM   #139
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 9,728
^^^ Case in point.

The Ashcroft report is meticulously researched and chock full or legal citations. Any attorney in a pro RKBA case who isn't citing it as a persuasive authority just isn't doing his job.

It's 107 pages long. Here's the 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.
So much for the "historians."
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Page generated in 0.03250 seconds with 7 queries