Well, Holder signed the
BRIEF FOR FORMER DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIALS AS AMICI CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONERS (255kb pdf) also known as the "Janet Reno et al" amicus in
DC v Heller.
That brief contains the statements:
- "Amici disagree with the current position of the United States Department of Justice that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for purposes unrelated to a State’s operation of a well-regulated militia."
The signers (including Holder) believe that the 2nd Amendment:
- “does not create a personal right in individuals to be free of reasonable legislative regulation of their possession of firearms”
The signers (including Holder) believe that if a right can be argued to be secured by the 2nd Amendment it is conditioned, qualified and thus limited by the Amendment's 'militia purpose' and only exercisable to that end:
- "the constitutional right to keep and bears arms is limited to the possession or use of firearms that is reasonably related to a State’s operation of a militia regulated by state and federal law."
The signers (including Holder) warn of the eventualities of the Court upholding the lower court's individual right interpretation:
- "Recognition of an expansive individual right to keep and bear arms for private purposes will make it more difficult for the government to defend present and future firearms laws."
And:
- "If the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, recreation, or other purposes unanchored to the operation of the militia, however, the analysis that courts must undertake becomes less straightforward and the risk that a firearms regulation or prohibition enacted to protect public safety will be invalidated is increased."
Holder's official position of the 2nd Amendment is that is does not secure an individual right.
Holder's official position is that no claimable right to keep and bear arms exists for anyone independent of the scope of the 2nd Amendment's protection sphere that he embraces. IOW, whatever right that can be said to exist must be filtered through the 2nd Amendment as if it is the right's genesis.
That position is hostile to all prior SCOTUS opinion and the principles of conferred powers and retained rights and it demands we ignore the rules for constitutional interpretation set out in the 9th and 10th Amendments.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms does not exist because of any particular interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The people possess the right to keep and bear arms because no power was ever surrendered by them to be granted to the federal government to even contemplate the personal arms of the private citizen.
ALL NOT CONFERRED IS RETAINED.
It's not that Holder just doesn't "get it", it's that he and his anti-constitution ilk (including Obama's SCOTUS picks) vigorously endeavor to destroy the principle at every turn.
Hybrid Mode
