The Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice issued a brief yesterday affirming that "The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias."

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

This looks as though it makes a case for modification or annulment of numerous firearms laws, including the 1986 ban on manufacturing new automatic weapons by not allowing the production of firearms that are "worthy of a Militia".

I havent really been much of a fan of this administration's DOJ thusfar, but this ruling certainly was a pleasant surprise. As much as I loath the Bush administration's positions on civil rights and foreign policy, among other things, I'm glad to see that they are at least mildly pro-gun, unlike the opposition in this year's election.

Without bringing the 'omg gunz r bad, they killed my dad and raped my mom' discussion into here, as there are already topiccs for that in general that you can dig up, how do you feel about this analysis, and after reading it and considering the points made for their argument, what are your opinions ?

Gun control never kept guns out of criminal's hands anyway, as they purchase whatever they want on the black market.

It's reasonably accurate, except that, somehow, DOJ had at one point developed an interpretation that some restrictions and bans are legal if they concern firearms "particularly suited to criminal misuse." If that were true, then then that should apply to entire Constitution as well - but it doesn't. You cannot, for example, ban speech because it's "particularly suited to criminal misuse" (certainly, books on bomb-making, or many kinds of media violence, meet that criterion.) Moreover, you cannot deny felons their First Amendment rights - Appellate and Supreme Courts have struck down, for example, Son-of-Sam laws to prevent criminals from profiting on book and movie deals. In short, it's still a double-standard: Government officials still want to restrict the Second Amendment in ways that are considered unconscionable and unconstitutional with respect to other rights.

The Second Amendment is actually one of the most if not THE most strongly, absolutely, and most carefully-worded part the Framers put in the Constitution. It has nothing to do with the first clause ("A well-regulated militia"), nor the main clause "the right of the people". It's the word "infringed". That's an extraordinarily powerful word. It's a no-bulls--- word. It means, "It means, "1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate; 2. To defeat; invalidate.". In other words, it means "do not f--- with at all". If the Framers of the Constitution had intended intended to allow for any kind of restrictions, whether "reasonable" or not, it doesn't make sense that they would have chosen such an incredibly strong word to state that it cannot be abridged. More likely, they would have chosen more moderate wording (if not a clearly-stated intention to provide for "reasonable" restrictions.) They did not. This is why gun control advocates go to such great lengths to focus solely on the first clause, rather than the remainder.