# The Department of Justice: 2nd Amendment upholds individual, not collective rights

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [February 25, 2005, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868 "2005-02-25T14:22:57Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\
**Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868/101 "2005-02-28T22:16:42Z")

</div>

> [@Polycarp](#):
>
> **Minty** or other knowledgeable person, is there any **informed** speculation on why they are consistently denying cert.?

Not really. In the absence of explanations from the justices or other Supreme Court insiders, bare speculation is all we have. It may be that they’re uncomfortable tackling the issue, it may be that they’re satisfied with the circuit court interpretations, it may be that they don’t think the issue is important, it may be that the lawyers write really boring cert. applications, and it may be any combination of the above.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\
**Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868/102 "2005-02-28T22:16:51Z")

</div>

> [@Steve MB](#):
>
> No they aren’t. For instance, I might “decide” that I’m not going to pay my bills, but that will not “settle” the matter.

Don’t be obtuse. That is not the same meaning of “decide” that I was using. A judge “deciding” a case is not the same meaning as a person “deciding” to pay his bills.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\
**Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868/103 "2005-02-28T22:39:14Z")

</div>

> [@Polycarp](#):
>
> It sets policy as regards potential prosecutions – in much the same way as similar opinions might govern how alleged constitutional rights regarding free speech are to be construed in relation to putative prosecutions for laws governing, e.g., obscenity or sedition laws.
> 
> It’s Congress’s job not to pass an apparently unconstitutional law. It’s the job of the President and his Administation not to enforce it. And it’s the job of the Courts to decide cases brought before them in accordance with the law of the land, including determining whether such laws that _were_ passed and enforced are indeed constitutional.

Right. I just wanted to make sure there wasn’t some _other_ argument being implied that I was missing. Because I definitely don’t see as how a decision by the _current_ administration as to when and where to prosecute puts anything “to bed”.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868.md?page=5)