Request Filed with DOJ for Any Record of Second Amendment Statements of Interest

So what’s AG Barr prepared to do to enforce the Second Amendment? (U.S. Department of Justice)

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)-A Freedom of Information Act request was filed Tuesday with the Department of Justice by attorney Stephen D. Stamboulieh. The request, filed on behalf of this writer, seeks DOJ “statements of interest” in defense of the Second Amendment comparable to what the Department has done in defense of the First Amendment.

“Imagine a society in which a citizen must petition the government for permission to meet with his fellow citizens,” the DOJ wrote in its statement filed in December in Brown v Jones County Junior College. “Imagine further that such requests must be made at least three days in advance of the requested meeting, and that the government has unbridled discretion to determine who may meet with whom, and about what they might speak. Such extreme preconditions to speech might not be out of place in Oceania, the fictional dystopian superstate in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, however, ensures that preconditions like these have no place in the United States of America.”

But “preconditions like these” have a place in the United States of America when it comes to the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Considering the historical evils that have always accompanied a “monopoly of violence,” Orwell’s Oceania seems like a resort community.

“The United States further states that the Attorney General enforces 34 U.S.C. § 12601 ‘which provides in relevant part that governmental authorities and their agents may not ‘engage in a pattern or practice by law enforcement officers… that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States’ and that the Attorney General ‘may in a civil action obtain the appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice,’” the DOJ statement asserted.

So they’ll go after violations for other rights, but where the Second Amendment is concerned, state entities can do as they please without fear of federal checks? Even though infringements directly affect the “security of a free State” by disarming the citizen Militia?

So much for “the supreme Law of the Land.”

This reminds me of nothing so much as “The Ashcroft Petition” project I co-authored and co-administered several years back. After then-Attorney General John Ashcroft had declared “the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms,” my colleagues and I decided to see if those were just words or if there was any chance the DOJ would do its job and protect individual rights from being infringed.

The upshot—after collecting and submitting over 40,000 mailed-in signatures from supporters across the country (including “Gunners Guru” Col. Jeff Cooper), the only official reply we got was a mealy-mouthed nothing burger, pointedly sent from the head of DOJ’s Terrorism and Violent Crime Section. That, and I had to write a letter to then-NRA-ILA head James Jay Baker demanding that he instruct their California field rep to stop telling people not to sign the petition because those of us behind it were “wild-eyed extremists.”

In any case, today is supposedly a new day and we have since had two Supreme Court cases confirming what Mr. Ashcroft once assured us, that the Second Amendment is an individual right. So now it’s time to find out what, if anything, our Department of Justice has done to fulfill duties it acknowledges in court filings to enforce against government actions “that deprive persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” It’s time to find out what kind of “appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice” we can expect from those whose entire existence is justified on doing just that.

Here’s our FOIA request:

FOIA DOJ Statement of Inter…

I’ll write an update when I hear back from DOJ.



About David Codrea:David Codrea
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

Subscribe
Notify of
38 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Country Boy
Country Boy
10 months ago

OK, we’ll hold our breath………………

BowserB
BowserB
10 months ago

Ruby Ridge was the warmup for Waco where the FBI murdered 76 men, women and children. The AG Janet Reno with assistance of Chucky Shumer declared the 76 deaths to be suicides. That was the event that pushed wacko Timothy McVeigh over the edge (he was at Waco watching). I think it’s a safe bet that no current or former FBI will be on the side of citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights.

donfranko
donfranko
10 months ago

There have been plenty of citizens denied their 2A right who have taken their case to the SCOTUS and the court has denied hearing the case. I’ve often wondered why the DOJ doesn’t step in and protect those persons rights? I am glad to see you step up to the plate and take a swing. May need to file legal action against the DOJ to get them to do their jobs. Another commentor suggested sending copies to Pres. Trump. That is a GREAT idea. Once he gets something to sink his teeth into, he doesn’t let go. Thanks.

The other Jim
The other Jim
10 months ago

Excellent, David.

Agostino
Agostino
10 months ago

Don’t you mean If you hear back.

AggregatVier
AggregatVier
10 months ago

Asking the DOJ to show how they’ve intervened to defend the Second Amendment to precisely show they haven’t had any interest or intention of doing so. Absolutely brilliant!

UncleT
UncleT
10 months ago

I think we already know. AG Bill Barr supported portions of the Brady Bill, said he’d be OK with banning semiautomatic firearms and “high-capacity” magazines,and has said America needs to implement a “Red Flag” gun confiscation scheme. Which, he wrote one and submitted it to Congress. Bill Barr is not a friend of the 2nd Amd.

Do you think he really changed?

BowserB
BowserB
10 months ago
Reply to  UncleT

UncleT, I think you’re being unfair to AG Barr. He’s not a friend to conservatives, gun owners, law abiding citizens generally, and apparently not to the president, either. I think it would be reasonable to say of Barr, “with friends like this, who need enemies?”

Ryben Flynn
Ryben Flynn
10 months ago

There is also:
18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241
18 U.S. Code § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

Littlejohn1411
Littlejohn1411
10 months ago

Dave, Another great article along with action, Thank you sir. I must say this has me excited as well as scared of what you could receive from the DOJ. I will be waiting anxiously for your article about the response you receive.

Rattlerjake
Rattlerjake
10 months ago
Reply to  Littlejohn1411

And of course, WHERE IS THE NRA when this is needed? Passing out 30 round magazines and selling T-shirts! I’m curious if a copy of this request was also sent to President Trump — we cannot rely on any government agency to handle these matters properly, we also need to address it straight to the POTUS! Trump is being advised by the likes of La Pierre, so he is NOT getting the truth or facts about the 2nd amendment!

Mack
Mack
10 months ago
Reply to  Rattlerjake

Your question has me wondering — when has the NRA EVER submitted a FOIA request?

Will Flatt
Will Flatt
10 months ago

He’s a swamp rat, so I expect he won’t. Trump surely had to have had some better options for an AG than Barr, but that’s who he went with. If Trump expects America to re-elect him, he’s going to have to do better than simply SAY he’s pro-2A. He’s going to have to ACT pro-2A.

Abolishing the BATF would be a good first step. Another would be to completely ignore the vichy NRA and listen instead to GOA and FPC.

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
10 months ago

Don’t hold your breath.

willyd
willyd
10 months ago
Reply to  CourageousLion

I think you will be a very deep shade of blue almost purple before Barr does anything to support the Second Amendment fully or even part way!!!!!!!!

Will Flatt
Will Flatt
10 months ago

This is the kind of research, writing and 2A activism that we should be getting from the likes of ‘Little Harold’ Hutchinson, but instead he sides with the vichy NRA in the compromising away of our Rights. Don’t forget, the petition to dump Harold remains at http://chng.it/nwrb2gvTKW

Thank you David for your due diligence and awesome writing. You set the bar for everyone else here at Ammoland!! Let’s work together to insure that 2A is incorporated into the body of law the way the rest of the Bill of Rights has been!

Mack
Mack
10 months ago
Reply to  Will Flatt

Thank you Will for ‘comparison shopping’ here. It needed saying.

After all, who wants a Lemon?

BowserB
BowserB
10 months ago
Reply to  Will Flatt

Also kudos on reference to “Vichy NRA.” That shot was a ten-ring.

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
10 months ago

Good one David.

Doszap
Doszap
10 months ago

Thank You, David for doing this. It’s WAY past time we nailed their foreskins to the wall on this. The way I read and interpret the Const LITERALLY and in light of Federalist 46/ the 2A/ ,is that WE the PEOPLE are to have, and are required to own weapons of LIKE KIND of the standing army.(the Unorganized militia!, not the Natl Guard) We have been shafted of these OBLIGATIONS without our side marching by the millions(and we could easily on D.C. to make a point. Time to NAIL them down, if they want to ignore the Supremacy clause of… Read more »

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
10 months ago
Reply to  Doszap

WE don’t have Constitutional guidelines. The Constitution was written as a list of restrictions on THEM. They violate their oaths of office they are traitors to their office and oath. What do WE do following OUR moral compass in this situation? Maybe what the people of ROMANIA did to their tyrants when they violated THEIR proper role as governing “officials”??

Stripeseven
Stripeseven
10 months ago

The Republics laws of the land are straight to the point, and easy to read. The rights of individuals cannot be overridden by the masses. There’s no room in the Republics rules for Mobocracy. Those that have knowingly and willfully hitched their wagon to that deprivation horse should face the penalties for the crimes that they have committed….REPUBLIC 2020

Doszap
Doszap
10 months ago
Reply to  Stripeseven

Stripe,
Most people have never read the Const / BOR’s / the Amendments nor do they have a clue about what most of what them mean.THEY pick and choose to hold close to their bosom THE ONES they like,to Hades with the rest of us.
AMERICA is a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy,

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
10 months ago
Reply to  Doszap

America is a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. Which IS a problem. But I do believe it is better then a THEOCRATIC REPUBLIC. Personally I believe it needs to be a country of voluntary cooperation and voluntary agreements. Just like it is in the other 95% of our lives. That small percentage where we have to DEAL with these restrictions placed on our rights is the problem. WHO NEEDS THEM? Did you know that for almost 8 years when the country was being founded we as a nation where an anarchy? FACT. There were no RULERS. But there are always rules. The rules… Read more »

Rattlerjake
Rattlerjake
10 months ago
Reply to  CourageousLion

Again, the misuse of the word democratic! Democratic/democracy means majority rule. If we were a democratic republic then we would be governed under majority rule, yet the Constitution says otherwise. The Constitution establishes that it takes a quarum of more than a simple majority to pass legislation, add an amendment, elect the President, etc. Additionally, NO MAJORITY OR QUARUM VOTE can override the rights of the people. The people do NOT have the authority or right to take the rights of any legal citizen! We have a Constitutional Republic, meaning the Constitution is the LAW!

PMinFl
PMinFl
10 months ago
Reply to  Doszap

Remember our most populated state is a republic, but their citizens have let the autocrats rule.

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
10 months ago
Reply to  Stripeseven

WAIT…doesn’t it take an 8 year doctorate degree in English language before you can possibly understand SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? Seems so in most of their cases with the 20,000 plus “laws” (read psychopathic control freak edicts) on the books that VIOLATE those four words.

Deplorable Bill
Deplorable Bill
10 months ago

Well, it looks like there is to be some hope for America, freedom and the 2A, the law of the land, a right and mandate from the LORD HIMSELF to keep and bear arms. See Luke 22:36. Unless someone is in jail or the loony farm or underage, every American citizen has the unalienable right to keep and bear arms. That is how I read the 2A. “Shall not be infringed” actually means exactly that. This would go a long way in avoiding a potential war. We all know that the 2A supports the rest of our GOD given, constitutionally… Read more »

Doszap
Doszap
10 months ago

Bill,
Dead on brother,if Jesus(GOD in the flesh) stated it,(more than once)then it’s GOOD enough for me.
Peter cut off Caiaphas servants ear in Gethsemane when they came to seize our LORD,with the Common weapon of the day.

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
10 months ago

“We all know the 2A is a deterrent against invasion by other nations” Not at this time. Without organized militias we would be slaughtered if we were invaded if we were just to depend on the 2nd amendment for our “power”. Seriously? Say the US military was engaged in more nation building around the world and the Chinese were able to manage to sneak in and invade us before they could get home to help. WHAT would happen? They would have the technology and organization to kick the shit out of us. Because we have NO organized militia and most… Read more »

BowserB
BowserB
10 months ago
Reply to  CourageousLion

What’s your point, Lion? Are you making a recommendation? I shoot more than 50 rounds a year. I think the greater problem with gun owners is not bothering to vote in every single election from school board on up. As you our Militia, I suspect as soon as enough gun owners got together and declared themselves a Militia, the FBI would go Waco on us before our first drill.

Grigori
Grigori
10 months ago

Thank You David, both for the informative article and for your action on behalf of us all!

tetejaun
tetejaun
10 months ago

The problem is a 138 year long ‘in your face’ record of abuses by the city, state and federal governments toward the Second Amendment. The problem is that Americans sat idle as these abuses mounted in frequency and severity. The problem is Americans were shot, gassed and burned alive for enjoying their Second Amendment Rights. The problem is government has no authority to create or enforce any ‘gun control law’. Any law not in 100% harmony with the Constitution is null & void. “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but… Read more »

jdshotgun66
jdshotgun66
10 months ago
Reply to  tetejaun

I never realized until recently how much JFK was a staunch Constitutionalist. No wonder they had to get rid of him! His assassination was one of the major last steps to complete the Communist takeover of the Democrat party, wasn’t it?

Link
Link
10 months ago
Reply to  jdshotgun66

The Kennedy family were big gun owners and supporters back in the day.
How else was old joe Kennedy able to be the big bootlegger he was during prohibition ??

It was after JFK and Rk were both assassinated that teddy and family became anti-gun.

Rattlerjake
Rattlerjake
10 months ago
Reply to  Link

Teddy was always anti-gun, he never followed the other two politically. Even though JFK was a democrap, his ideology was much closer to conservative.

Tionico
Tionico
10 months ago
Reply to  jdshotgun66

Yup. And the evidence, taken as a whole, points directly and conclusively to LBJ. He wanted to go to war in VietNam, JFK did not. So JFK had to go. THAT was a key fork in the road for our nation.

Then, consider all the new laws regarding liberty, free enterprise, etc, Jhnson brought in .

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
10 months ago
Reply to  tetejaun

Good one from JFK. I’ll go back to 1903 as the time when it really became a problem. As lazy ass Americans let the “National Guard” which is part of the unconstitutional STANDING ARMY, to become the replacement for the CITIZEN MINUTEMEN ORGANIZED MILITIA that JFK dreamed of in his statement. Until we get those first 13 words back into force and effect. GOOD LUCK.It will be a “War of the Flea”.