Skip to main content

The thing about "the right to bear arms" (as it applies to you and me) is that it doesn't even come from the

Hastings, MI |

2nd amendment (not directly anyway), it comes from a Supreme Court decision ABOUT the 2nd Amendment called "The District of Columbia vs. Heller" . The 2nd Amendment, as written by the Founding Fathers and set down in the Bill of Rights is:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Which (until 2008 when the Washington gun lobby stepped in) has always been interpreted as "You have the right to bear arms, as long as you are serving in a militia". It was only AFTER DoC v. Heller (when the NRA flooded the case with cash) that it was re-interpreted as "You have the right to bear arms, unconnected with military service".

Attorney Answers 6

  1. In Colonial era, "well regulated" meant properly trained. Militia was a group of private citizens with a common purpose. Take your conspiracy theories somewhere else.

  2. It is being interpreted much differently now than it was then.

    This is not intended as individual legal advice and there is no attorney client relationship established by this answer. It is advisable that you seek individualized legal assistance. This is not a substitute for hiring an attorney.

  3. I would not put it that way. The Second Amendment is notoriously ambiguous and is subject, for many reasons. to more than one interpretation. But in our system it is the duty of the Supreme Court to make those interpretations for legal purposes. Although numerous decisions, including some previous observations by the Supreme Court itself, generally leaned toward other interpretations, the matter is resolved, for legal and practical purposes, by Heller. As a matter of purely academic discussion, of course, it remains open forever.

  4. What has this got to do with DUI?

    Confidential information should not be disclosed in this Internet forum. Click on the "More..." link for IMPORTANT INFORMATION about this AVVO Answer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I am an experienced Wisconsin lawyer. The laws in each jurisdiction can be very different. I cannot give legal advice over the internet nor can I establish an attorney client relationship with you. You should NOT assume or otherwise conclude that there is an attorney -client relationship between any reader and this writer or his firm. These comments are only guideposts. They are not subject to any privilege protections. Indeed, these internet communications are neither privileged nor confidential. Accordingly, those using this form of communication need to be guarded in what they write. Because of the nature of these communications the information is general only and should not be relied upon in any specific case. This internet site is public forum, where the communications are not confidential or privileged. There may very well be merit to your defense or position in this type of situation. However, there are hardly sufficient details for an attorney to provide you with some path to follow. It is imperative that ALL of the facts in a particular situation be examined. No conclusion can be drawn from the communication that you have provided. There are some matters that are just better handled by an attorney familiar with the procedures of the courts in your area. Most, if not all, legal matters should not be handled via internet communication. At best, the responders on this site can give you a few hints and guidance. To deal with a legal problem, nothing is better than to consult with a lawyer who will give you some time and advice. If you cannot afford an attorney, there should be agencies in your area that can provide discounted, or even free, legal services. For a definitive answer you should seek legal advice from an attorney who (1) is licensed to practice in the state which has jurisdiction; (2) has experience in the area of law you are asking about, and (3) has been retained as your attorney for representation or consultation. Your question and the attorney’s answer may be used for promotional or educational purposes.

  5. Respectfully, this is not a political forum for scholarly discussion about the 2nd amendment. And, cherry picking dicta from case law hoping to stir up a debate amongst a bunch of criminal defense lawyers is an exercise in futility.

    An Attorney-Client relationship has not been established. Becket J. Jones is not your attorney.

  6. If I am to guess (because you never actually asked a question), you have an OWI (or some form of drunk driving conviction) and now you cannot carry a concealed pistol. Is that correct? Keep in mind that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute and caselaw has said so. Here is a link to my Facebook site where I recently posted a statement that may help you better understand it. The Government may restrict firearms under certain situations or from certain people. Scroll down and look at my January 31 posting. Then click on the case I noted and read it. Take a look:

    The comments listed here do not create an attorney-client relationship. The comments are for informational purposes only and are not to be considered legal advice. This attorney is only licensed in Michigan and does not give legal advice in any other state. All comments are to be considered conversational information and you should not rely on these comments as legal advice or in place of retaining an attorney of our own. The comments here are based solely on what you have provided and therefore are general in nature and with more specific facts or details a different answer or outcome could result. The legal system is not a perfect science and this attorney does not guarantee any outcome.

Civil rights topics

Top tips from attorneys

What others are asking

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Ask a Question

- or -

Search for lawyers by reviews and ratings.

Find a Lawyer

Browse all legal topics