Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 7/11/2001 12:02:53 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Reversing a position it adopted nearly 30 years ago, the Justice Department is preparing a formal legal opinion that individuals, not just groups, have a constitutional right to own guns, a view advocated by Attorney General John Ashcroft, department officials said on Wednesday. They said the department's office of legal counsel was drafting the opinion, which would be a shift from the position it took in 1973 under Republican President Richard Nixon that there was no personal constitutional right to own or use a gun. The letter, denounced by gun-control groups, represented a break from the government's prior position that the Second Amendment only conferred a collective right to own guns through militias, and not an individual right. The opinion will incorporate the views Ashcroft first expressed in a letter to the National Rifle Association in May. The officials said Ashcroft, an NRA member, expressed official Justice Department policy in the letter, not his personal views. In another move applauded by the NRA, Ashcroft last month announced plans to slash the amount of time the government can keep records of instant background checks for gun buyers. One official said the Justice Department would continue to defend existing gun laws in court, even after the opinion had been completed. In his letter, Ashcroft said the Second Amendment did not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for "compelling state interests." The issue of whether the Second Amendment applies to individuals is before a federal appeals court based in New Orleans, and the case could then be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Second Amendment says, "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." Seth Waxman, solicitor general under Democratic President Bill Clinton, said in a letter nearly a year ago that successive Democratic and Republican administrations, the Supreme Court in 1939 and eight U.S. appeals courts had rejected arguments the Second Amendment extended firearms rights to individuals. At least its a step in the right direction. What a breath of fresh air it is to have an AG with common sense.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 12:38:28 PM EDT
Each and everyone on this board needs to review (Perpich Gov. of Minn. vs DOD, U.S. Supreme Court 1990) they ended the arguement over ten years ago, but the tyrants are still at it! It is the people themselves who comprise the militia, not the NATIONAL GUARD, STATE GUARD, or DEFENSE FORCES, which were created by statute! Something more, I predict that you will start to see individuals pushing the fact that the people themselves are intitled to possess military arms as individuals, severely damaging the NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT, the CRIME BILL and other un-constitutional acts, and color of law!
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 12:51:33 PM EDT
Wish List: 1) President Ashcroft [:D]
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 1:01:22 PM EDT
One more time, "Thank God for G.W. Bush and John Ashcroft!!!"
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 1:45:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 1:51:40 PM EDT
I posted this elsewhere, but here we go again: Not to put on my tinfoil beanie, but is this why the 5th Circuit Court has not ruled on the Emerson appeal? It would seem that now that the Justice Department has reversed its position that the appeal of the Emerson decision has no merit. The Justice Department can now just drop the appeal and let Sam Cummings' decision stand - as a lower court decision. Once again, the Supreme's get to dodge (pardon the pun) a bullet. This means, of course, that the NEXT administration can AGAIN reverse Ashcroft's position (radical right-winger!) and declare (as Seth Waxman did, and accurately) that the majority of judicial precedent supports the idea that the Second Amendment protects a collective, not an individual right. I want a legal decision from the 5th Circuit. I want to see it appealed to the Supreme Court. I want a Supreme Court decision akin to the Brown v. Board of Education decision that overturns 70 years of legal precedent, and states unequivocally that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, that the Second Amendment protects that right, and that the right INCLUDES but is not limited to "weapons of military use" - i.e.: the dreaded selective-fire assault-rifle. But apparently that isn't going to happen. Perhaps I should put on my tinfoil beanie after all.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 2:09:39 PM EDT
Even if the Federal Government changes its position on the case, there are conflicting rulings that need to be addressed (specifically in the Ninth District). This would force the Supreme Court to consider the case so teh law could be applied consistently across the country.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 2:19:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/11/2001 2:16:58 PM EDT by Garand_Shooter]
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 5:31:10 PM EDT
Wrong! Not at their whim, only through due process. If they carry through with this the only way to take you guns away would be to convict you of a felony... which requires a JURY remember... Oh wait, I forgot I am talking to a Libratarian...
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 5:37:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/11/2001 5:34:46 PM EDT by Garand_Shooter]
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 5:47:48 PM EDT
It still only takes 1 lying domestic partner to get one charged with a "domestic abuse" crime where one may be convicted only on the testimony of 1 liar....no felony charge or conviction no preponderance of evidence and the testimony of only 1 liar...when they reverse this injustice...and undo clintons executive orders I ll be a believer to until tha time...I will wait and see...I voted Repub simply because I couldnt stand the idea of Gore being president and no other candidate had a chance...would have prefered Ron Paul and Alan Keyes
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 6:22:55 PM EDT
Baker has it right, he should have waited for Emerson before he did this. Now the 9 wise souls can look the other way since it's not a pressing issue and defer judgment for a decade or two.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 6:45:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/11/2001 6:46:09 PM EDT by Sweep]
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 6:56:17 PM EDT
This John Ashcroft right winger really has me flustered! We worked so hard to move America in the right direction and he takes it upon himself to undo all my hard work. Does the constitution really say 'Shall NOT be infringed', that's funny I always thought it said 'Shall be infringed'. God knows I tried. Maybe someday you people will wake up to the truth. [smoke]
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 7:02:15 PM EDT
This doesn't mean crap to me. There are still liberal judges that could care less. Also, it won't mean anything to us unless every gun law going back to the 1934 NFA is repealed. DAMMIT! I want to be able to order a MP-5 factory direct from H&K in Germany over the internet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wouldn't that be wonderful? themao [chainsawkill]
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 7:14:35 PM EDT
W.J. Clinton, Your parents neglected you as a child, did'nt they. I had a talk with some of my co-workers today... One gal just hates the thought of no gun control laws..."we need MORE!" she said. And went on about how the guns were no longer needed to hunt or to protect us from the Brits etc. I asked her if she believed in the constitution. ...."yes"....I then asked her if she thought her freedom of speach was important to her. "of course!" I then asked her which part of the constitution guarinteed her free speach."1st ammendment." and then what gives her freedom from illegal search and seizure, "4th ammendment." How about freedom from self incrimination, "5th." I then asked her, "If the 2nd ammendment is so out of date, don't you think that all of the rest are also, they are just as old?" Her response......silence. It took her an hour to come up with a lame response, and all of the rest of the office folks laughed. I know it is a "you had to be there", but it was awesome! Lew
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 11:30:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 11:46:00 PM EDT
The Emerson case has already been argued--the 5th circuit is going to have to issue an opinion. (whether it appears in our lifetime, however...) If the government loses they might or might not appeal. The supreme court doesn't _have_ to do anything about hearing appeals from other circuits, even if they conflict--they can let the conflict stand for a very long time if they like. The politics on the SC are unknown. Four justices have to agree to hear any case. Three justices have made statements sympathetic to an individual interpretation--Scalia, Rhenquist, and Thomas. They'd need to pick up O'Conner and one more.
Link Posted: 7/12/2001 12:56:58 AM EDT
Its about time somebody do the right thing. Six
Link Posted: 7/12/2001 1:41:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 9divdoc: It still only takes 1 lying domestic partner to get one charged with a "domestic abuse" crime where one may be convicted only on the testimony of 1 liar....no felony charge or conviction no preponderance of evidence and the testimony of only 1 liar...when they reverse this injustice...and undo clintons executive orders I ll be a believer to until tha time...I will wait and see...I voted Repub simply because I couldnt stand the idea of Gore being president and no other candidate had a chance...would have prefered Ron Paul and Alan Keyes
View Quote
My first choice was Alan Keys also.
Link Posted: 7/12/2001 1:53:24 PM EDT
Tippie, you`ve got it right on....too many of these people live in thier own little happy world but can`t open thier eyes long enough to see reality....IF they had a backround or NEED, then they would feel different of course. one guy i work with is so anti, he is actually fun to argue with. he says his brother was a state trooper for 20 some years, and NEVER had to draw his sidearm.....therefore, his justification for no-one to own a gun!....what a cushy little dream world he lives in!!!!
Top Top