Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Posted: 7/11/2001 11:37:56 AM EST
[url]http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010711/ts/crime_guns_dc_1.html[/url] No really, this is really big!
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 11:40:44 AM EST
Well, glory be....someone in government actually read that old consta...constu...that old yellow thing....
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 11:40:44 AM EST
Interesting... "Reversing a position it adopted nearly 30 years ago, the Justice Department (news - web sites) 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 (news - web sites), department officials said on Wednesday."
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 11:48:16 AM EST
Nope....not good enuf for the Libertarians. Ashcroft must staple a copy of the Second Amendment to his forehead, and then blow a fart in Feinsteins face, or they WILL NOT be satisfied. (I'm sorry to stir up excrement on this. I'll shut up now.)
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 11:55:13 AM EST
LOL! As a closet Libertarian, I am happy with this news, it reverses a long history of theft of individual rights.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 12:01:39 PM EST
Garandman - the RKBA is not the *only* thing most libertarians concern themselves with, which is why we/they continue to be displeased with Bush. As far as the RKBA is concerned, Ashcroft has been the best person is his office since I don't know how long, and his appointment is the smartest thing IMO that Bush has done. RKBA is the most important, but we libertarians are after so much more: mostly the reduction in size of our government which Bush doesnt seem too interested in so far.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 12:02:57 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 12:05:35 PM EST
It's a long road SGB, but we have been humping up a high mountain for the past 70 some odd years, it is nice to reach a flat spot... Time to go out and buy another gun, celebration wise. I have my eye on a cherry Calico M-100, NIB for $300.00 - it's calling me .
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 12:08:19 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 12:18:12 PM EST
Yes, this is a good start. And Seth Waxman can bl*w me.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 12:25:04 PM EST
The statement: In his letter, Ashcroft said the Second Amendment did not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for ``compelling state interests.'' really worries me. Isn't the purpose of the 2nd to stop the congress from enacting such laws? Would a restriction alowing only LEO's be a "compelling state intrest"????
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 12:25:47 PM EST
Um, not to put on my tinfoil beanie, but does this mean the Justice Department will be dropping its appeal of the U.S. v. Emerson decision? Is this why the 5th Circuit hasn't handed down a decision yet? Does this mean that the Supreme Court won't rule on the true meaning of the Second Amendment (again)? After all, the PREVIOUS Justice Department DID hold that the "right to keep and bear arms" was limited to the states. That was the argument Mateja used in the appeal. Now that the Justice Department has reversed itself, it seems that the appeal has no merit. Judge Cummings' decision will stand - as a local decision, not as a national one. And the NEXT administration's Justice Department will be free to decide that the Second Amendment DOESN'T protect an individual right - just like the majority of legal precedent holds. I want a decision. I want it NOW.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 12:43:09 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 2:31:29 PM EST
For once, I agree with garandman...the anti-Bush people really need to pull their collective head out of their fifth point of contact. So it isn't EXACTLY what you wanted to hear? So the hell what? It's more than any of us EXPECTED to hear! Can't you be happy about good news? When you guys were kids, did you bitch about your Christmas presents if they weren't EXACTLY what you wanted?
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 2:48:23 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/11/2001 2:55:08 PM EST by Imbroglio]
No, but I have learned that if it sounds too good to be true, then it usually is. 3 branches of Government: Legislative- writes the laws Judicial- interprets the laws Executive- enforces the laws The Justice Dept falls under the Executive. "One official said the Justice Department would continue to defend existing gun laws in court, even after the opinion had been completed." This means business as usual. It would be the same as Schumer (legislative branch) saying that he will prosecute everyone that owns "assault rifles". The ONLY decision that will count is one that comes from the Judicial Branch.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 3:23:10 PM EST
Gosh darn! Don't piss on my parade! This is a glimmer of hope! A shining light! Give it a chance. Let's see what develops. Throw me fricken bone! God, I hope this flys. If, on the off chance this comes to fruition and the second is reafirmed as a right as written in the Constitution, will California be required to throw out all of it's stupid laws and restrictions?
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 4:05:28 PM EST
Yes but the Justice department has a couple court cases pending they have to handle, now dont they. I told you that they were testing the waters the last few weeks...
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 4:24:38 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/11/2001 4:21:49 PM EST by MG_ME]
Originally Posted By garandman: Nope....not good enuf for the Libertarians. Ashcroft must staple a copy of the Second Amendment to his forehead, and then blow a fart in Feinsteins face, or they WILL NOT be satisfied. (I'm sorry to stir up excrement on this. I'll shut up now.)
View Quote
bring her bitchy ass here ill break wind. [:D]
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 4:36:28 PM EST
You know, none of the TV outlets are broadcasting this... We just put on Headline News, after watching the news on our local Fox and ABC outlets. They havent mentioned it yet. All they want to talk about is Condit and human stem cell research. It seems that they are giving us cover, they arent informing the sheeple about a shift to weaken gun laws...
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 4:57:04 PM EST
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: You know, none of the TV outlets are broadcasting this... We just put on Headline News, after watching the news on our local Fox and ABC outlets. They havent mentioned it yet. All they want to talk about is Condit and human stem cell research. It seems that they are giving us cover, they arent informing the sheeple about a shift to weaken gun laws...
View Quote
It's on nytimes.com, but I had to do a search to find it. They are not treating it as important news.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 5:14:34 PM EST
God bless John Ashcroft.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 5:18:21 PM EST
It is big, in the begining, butgets real small after about 2/3 way through the article, and here's why, Garandman, please take notice:
In his letter, Ashcroft said the Second Amendment did not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for ``compelling state interests.''
View Quote
If one agrees that the 2nd protects and individual right to own firearms, and you understand english, then you know that "shall not be infringed" means that congress absolutely does not have the authority to enact laws restricting firearm ownership for "compelling state interests". The reason the 2nd exists is to prevent us from being trampled by "compelling STATE interests". Nope. The Bush administration, and John Ashcroft are fascist lite. No real change here.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 5:44:51 PM EST
Maybe now CA residents can sue the state for hindering their right to bear arms.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 6:17:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/11/2001 6:15:15 PM EST by shaggy]
Originally Posted By ADTECHARMS: The statement: In his letter, Ashcroft said the Second Amendment did not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for ``compelling state interests.'' really worries me. Isn't the purpose of the 2nd to stop the congress from enacting such laws? Would a restriction alowing only LEO's be a "compelling state intrest"????
View Quote
Before y'all get your panties in a bunch over that statement, you have to understand the legalese here. "Compelling state interest" is a legal term of art. It refers to the standard of review a court must apply when it evaluates the constitutionality of a law. "Compelling state interest" is the catch phrase for the highest level of constitutional scrutiny possible. It puts the highest possible burden on the gov't to prove a law is constitutional. You cannot place a more restrictive burden on the gov't. All laws regarding your fundamental rights - including one of the most fundamental rights in our system of gov't, the right to vote - are subject to strict scrutiny and the compelling state interest test.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 6:21:43 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 6:26:09 PM EST
What you are seeing here is STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISM being practiced for the first time by the Exectutive branch. This is the Justice Department drawing a plan to treat the 2nd Amendment the same way as the other 26.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 6:28:49 PM EST
What shaggy said. "Compelling state interest" is extremely limited. There ain't many of them. Example: The publication of the sailing dates and times of troop ships during war times is not protected under 1st A because of a compelling state interest. I am tempted to look at this as a big win, but it isn't really. It just shows the Constitution is whatever the party in power at the time says it is. At the very least it is a ray of sunshine. Ashcroft rocks!
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 6:33:20 PM EST
Well, guess this is a good start. Now, if they would just do away this the black weapons ban...
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 6:35:40 PM EST
Originally Posted By shaggy:
Originally Posted By ADTECHARMS: The statement: In his letter, Ashcroft said the Second Amendment did not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for ``compelling state interests.'' really worries me. Isn't the purpose of the 2nd to stop the congress from enacting such laws? Would a restriction alowing only LEO's be a "compelling state intrest"????
View Quote
Before y'all get your panties in a bunch over that statement, you have to understand the legalese here. "Compelling state interest" is a legal term of art. It refers to the standard of review a court must apply when it evaluates the constitutionality of a law. "Compelling state interest" is the catch phrase for the highest level of constitutional scrutiny possible. It puts the highest possible burden on the gov't to prove a law is constitutional. You cannot place a more restrictive burden on the gov't. All laws regarding your fundamental rights - including one of the most fundamental rights in our system of gov't, the right to vote - are subject to strict scrutiny and the compelling state interest test.
View Quote
You say that but he said he will enforce existing laws on the books, and they have no TRUE compelling state interest to uphold them. What compelling state interest mandates that we cannot have a flash hider AND a detachable 30 round magazine? What compelling state interest mandates that no more full autos be manufactured or imported for civilian purchases?
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 6:42:08 PM EST
Wouldn't legislatinng by use of "compelling state interest" technically place the 2nd amendment into a collective right?
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 6:47:38 PM EST
You say that but he said he will enforce existing laws on the books, and they have no TRUE compelling state interest to uphold them. What compelling state interest mandates that we cannot have a flash hider AND a detachable 30 round magazine? What compelling state interest mandates that no more full autos be manufactured or imported for civilian purchases?
View Quote
Has it occured to you that this is the basis to take these cases to court and have them overturned? A administration cannot just choose to ignore laws whenever it feels like it- regardless of what Clinton and his croneys did. The machine gun provision of the 1986 law has to be either overturned by Congress- not likely- or found unconstitutional. So this will now be the governments position when a suitable case comes up. And the Brady Bill they may not bother with since it sunsets by itself. By strict constructionism, the 34 and 68 GCA's are vulnerable, but people are comfortable with them, it is not likely that the Bush Admin will challenge them. HOWEVER, even more vulnerable are certain state laws. State bans on MG sales for example. The notorious Sullivan Act in New York. The restrictive laws in Cook County IL and the District of Columbia are vulnerable to appeals to the federal courts. Its my guess that its these state and local laws that will be challenged in court, not the Federal statutes.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 6:49:15 PM EST
Originally Posted By Imbrog|io: Wouldn't legislatinng by use of "compelling state interest" technically place the 2nd amendment into a collective right?
View Quote
It doesnt for the First Amendment, so why should it for the Second.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 6:55:35 PM EST
I for one see this as a good sign. It is easy to sniff around and find all the negatives in it. But when you think about it, this is the first federal position that actually supports any kind of RKBA. I really don't think it would be in our best interest to try to take too big a bite. The majority of the population would freak out if the media started reporting on how Bush and Ashcroft want to overturn 30 (almost 60 really) of anti legislation. If there is one thing to be learned from the liberal movement in America, is that incrementalism works! This year is the individual RKBA, maybe next year or 2 from now we might get national reciprocity? Maybe after that high caps and flash suppressors won't be bad? Maybe after that select fire will be fun, not evil. I'll take any step foreward we can get! Is sure as heck beats trying to defend ourselves all the time!
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 7:02:55 PM EST
I see this as a big win! Just imagine the Million Moms or Handgun Contol trying to tell you that you have no gun ownership rights because the 2nd is about the National Guard instead of an individual's right to gun ownership, and then all of a sudden the government itself says that the 2nd is about an individual's rights. I hope that the Bush administration keeps giving us more good news like this.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 7:17:30 PM EST
You say that but he said he will enforce existing laws on the books, and they have no TRUE compelling state interest to uphold them. What compelling state interest mandates that we cannot have a flash hider AND a detachable 30 round magazine? What compelling state interest mandates that no more full autos be manufactured or imported for civilian purchases?
View Quote
Well, he'll enforce the existing laws because that's his job. What did you expect him to say - that he wouldn't enforce gun laws? Attorney Generals enforce the laws - they cannot just pick and choose what laws they want to enforce and what laws they want to ignore. Congress enacts the laws, the attorney general is charged with the enforcement of those laws whether he likes what congress has done or not. Strict scrutiny (compelling state interest) is applied by the judicial branch in evaluating the constitutionality of certain laws which impact on the most fundamental and sacred of our rights. Unfortunately, the 2nd amendment has not been held (by the SCOTUS) to be one of the fundamental rights...at least not yet. So at this point in time, the courts do not have to apply strict scrutiny to laws impacting on the RKBA. Ashcroft is simply saying that congress can enact gun legislation which could pass muster under the strict scrutiny test. Its sort of a no-brainer; if congress can enact legislation impacting upon the most sacred and fundamental of our rights if it passes muster under strict scrutiny, it can certainly enact legislation for a 'lesser right' - ie. one which has not yet been adjudicated to be one of those most sacred fundamental rights. Right now, congress can enact almost any sort of gun legislation they want, regardless of whether there is ANY gov't interest served. I think Ashcroft is just trying to indicate his opinion that congress not enact any gun legislation which could not pass muster under strict scrutiny. In short, that congress respect the 2nd like those few most fundamental rights even though they don't have to.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 7:26:34 PM EST
I wonder if saying he will continue to enforce gun laws on the books means that he will continue to prosecute the Emerson case? Or is he just gonna let it drop?
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 7:27:54 PM EST
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: What you are seeing here is STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISM being practiced for the first time by the Exectutive branch. This is the Justice Department drawing a plan to treat the 2nd Amendment the same way as the other 26.
View Quote
I will say this much, they fear an uprising among the people against their bullshit! Perpich vs. DOD U.S.Supreme Court 1990 is clear on the 2nd Amendment matter, with all justices concluding it is the people themselves who comprise the militia mentioned in the constitution, thus they have a right to be armed as individuals, had the right even before the U.S. was formed!
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 7:35:36 PM EST
Ashcroft Rocks, now if we could just shoot down the damn liberal media who is deceiving the masses.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 7:43:24 PM EST
Originally Posted By andreusan: Perpich vs. DOD U.S.Supreme Court 1990 is clear on the 2nd Amendment matter, with all justices concluding it is the people themselves who comprise the militia mentioned in the constitution, thus they have a right to be armed as individuals, had the right even before the U.S. was formed!
View Quote
That is NOT what Perpich says. You've completely misread that case. The part you're referring to is dicta; a discussion of the terms of two statutes passed AFTER the constitution; one in 1792 and one in 1903. And, as I recall, both statutes were later repealed.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 7:48:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/11/2001 7:45:53 PM EST by ArmdLbrl]
Where can I find a online refrence to Perpich vs. Department of Defense 1990 online? I have never heard of that one. But they were pretty clear in the Miller decision for that matter. People are allowed to posses weapons suitable for milita duty. The court ruled that they had no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had a role as a milita arm. This, of course, implies that anything the US Army uses, or has used, ought to be legal for individuals to own. If it is, or was, used by the US Army how could it not be suitable for Milita use? I can see a "compelling state interest" in restricting possession of explosive and incendiary devices, but not of firearms- for instance you should be able to buy a M203 for your AR. I can see no reason why the goverment should have a "compelling interest" in that. On the other hand I can see why they, and the general public, would have a "compelling interest" in keeping HE and WP ammo for them very tightly restricted. Cannister, LTL's, signals, illuminations, and training rounds should be legal. If a emergency occurs live rounds can be procured, one way or another, from the government.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 8:08:03 PM EST
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
You say that but he said he will enforce existing laws on the books, and they have no TRUE compelling state interest to uphold them. What compelling state interest mandates that we cannot have a flash hider AND a detachable 30 round magazine? What compelling state interest mandates that no more full autos be manufactured or imported for civilian purchases?
View Quote
Has it occured to you that this is the basis to take these cases to court and have them overturned? A administration cannot just choose to ignore laws whenever it feels like it- regardless of what Clinton and his croneys did. The machine gun provision of the 1986 law has to be either overturned by Congress- not likely- or found unconstitutional. So this will now be the governments position when a suitable case comes up. And the Brady Bill they may not bother with since it sunsets by itself. By strict constructionism, the 34 and 68 GCA's are vulnerable, but people are comfortable with them, it is not likely that the Bush Admin will challenge them. HOWEVER, even more vulnerable are certain state laws. State bans on MG sales for example. The notorious Sullivan Act in New York. The restrictive laws in Cook County IL and the District of Columbia are vulnerable to appeals to the federal courts. Its my guess that its these state and local laws that will be challenged in court, not the Federal statutes.
View Quote
That's a big "what if", and one I had not considered. I hope you're right. [:)]
Link Posted: 7/12/2001 9:58:34 AM EST
That's a big "what if", and one I had not considered. I hope you're right.
View Quote
So do I man, so do I. Any bit of bad news could stop this in its tracks. Notice how careful they have been leaking this stuff out one bit at a time, they are very afraid of backlash.
Link Posted: 7/12/2001 11:51:46 AM EST
Originally Posted By Celt: Well, glory be....someone in government actually read that old consta...constu...that old yellow thing....
View Quote
Total agreement [8D]
Link Posted: 7/12/2001 11:56:27 AM EST
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Originally Posted By Imbrog|io: Wouldn't legislatinng by use of "compelling state interest" technically place the 2nd amendment into a collective right?
View Quote
It doesnt for the First Amendment, so why should it for the Second.
View Quote
What first amendment legislation has banned certain words, amount of words used, or how fast words are used?
Link Posted: 7/12/2001 1:12:48 PM EST
Dont forget to use Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1943) where the court ruled that "a person cannot be compelled "to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution."" This could get interesting with regard to NFA registration taxes. Kharn
Link Posted: 7/12/2001 1:39:06 PM EST
Originally Posted By Imbrog|io:
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Originally Posted By Imbrog|io: Wouldn't legislatinng by use of "compelling state interest" technically place the 2nd amendment into a collective right?
View Quote
It doesnt for the First Amendment, so why should it for the Second.
View Quote
What first amendment legislation has banned certain words, amount of words used, or how fast words are used?
View Quote
You asked if "compelling state interest" made the 2nd a collective right. I said that it didnt, just like it didnt make the 1st a collective right. The state does not have a compelling interest in banning certain guns cause of their looks, amount of ammo they carry, or how fast they fire. Those are the parts of the gun laws that are unconstitutional under this kind of test. But just like the court has ruled that you cant use fighting words, you cant libel someone, you cant yell fire in a crowded theater or publish military secrets. So to you cant use a firearm to comit a crime, to threaten or intimidate, and a individual can be denied access to them for a felony criminal conviction.
Link Posted: 7/12/2001 1:56:55 PM EST
Originally Posted By Imbrog|io: What first amendment legislation has banned certain words, amount of words used, or how fast words are used?
View Quote
Much legislation restricting speech has been upheld. It all depends on factors such as whether the law restricts only a certain viepoint of speech, where the speech is taking place, what type of speech (political or commercial), etc.. As an example, the gov't can regulate the time place and manner of speech if the regulation is reasonable and content neutral (it regulates all speech regardless of the content, not just a particular viewpoint). A law can prohibit picketing on gov't property, in schools, or require you to get a permit to hold a demonstration in the park. Most of these content neutral regulations are judged by intermediate scrutiny - a lesser standard than strict scrutiny. The gov't can even enact legislation which regulates or prohibits speech based upon the specific content of that speech, but only if it passes muster under the strict scrutiny standard.
Top Top